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

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

here it shows real cpu performance also

He meant actual CPU GAMING performance....

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

here it shows real cpu performance also

That's an unrealistic test for gaming, but it does show the multi-threaded performance.

[The Sloth]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

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

i know i am just saying, most people are happy with 60 fps 1080p,1440p,4k or 120 fps 1080p,1440p,4k. most people dont have 144hz or 240hz 1080p monitor. 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

i know i am just saying, most people are happy with 60 fps 1080p,1440p,4k or 120 fps 1080p,1440p,4k. most people dont have 144hz or 240hz 1080p monitor. 

OK............ Would you want to buy a CPU to get your GPU bottlenecked? I sure wouldn't....

[The Sloth]

Just now, huilun02 said:

People instantly forget that they don't play on benchmark test systems.

Try comparing game perf when you have a load of crap running in the background, running 1440p without a 1080 or Titan XP.

That is a more realistic use case. Bottleneck will fall on the GPU and background stuff will be taken care of by Ryzen's extra cores.

And then do that all over again for productivity software.

 

Yeah the 7700K is a formula one car. It dominates on the race track. But no, people don't drive on race tracks. We'd much rather have something more practical for everyday use. Ryzen may not be some supercar but it is definitely no slouch, able to haul some serious work.

 

that's the point, benchmarks have values but not over everything, you have to take in cost, capability, optimization and many others factors. 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, huilun02 said:

Try comparing game perf when you have a load of crap running in the background

The 7700K isn't maxed out in most games... CPU usage usually hovers around 60-70% on the 7700K....

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

People instantly forget that they don't play on benchmark test systems.

Try comparing game perf when you have a load of crap running in the background, running 1440p without a 1080 or Titan XP.

That is a more realistic use case. Bottleneck will fall on the GPU and background stuff will be taken care of by Ryzen's extra cores.

And then do that all over again for productivity software. If you think all people care about is benchmarking, grinding 1080p with some unaffordable GPU, you need to get real.

 

Yeah the 7700K is a formula one car. It dominates on the race track. But no, people don't drive on race tracks. We'd much rather have something more practical for everyday use. Ryzen may not be some supercar but it is definitely no slouch, able to haul some serious work.

Valid argument.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

that's the point, benchmarks have values but not over everything, you have to take in cost, capability, optimization and many others factors. 

The 7700K is cheaper than the 1700X and the 1800X... The 7700K is more capable in games than Ryzen. Ryzen is more capable than the 7700K in productivity tasks... Optimization? You do know that most games are optimized for 4C/8T CPUs, right? 

[AnonymousGuy]

3 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

People instantly forget that they don't play on benchmark test systems.

Try comparing game perf when you have a load of crap running in the background, running 1440p without a 1080 or Titan XP.

That is a more realistic use case. Bottleneck will fall on the GPU and background stuff will be taken care of by Ryzen's extra cores.

And then do that all over again for productivity software.

 

Yeah the 7700K is a formula one car. It dominates on the race track. But no, people don't drive on race tracks. We'd much rather have something more practical for everyday use. Ryzen may not be some supercar but it is definitely no slouch, able to haul some serious work.

The 1800X launches and everyone suddenly thinks they have workloads that need 8 cores.  

 

The only scenario where I see buying Ryzen would be someone who was shopping for a 6900K and then wants to trade $500 savings for a more unreliable platform.

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The 7700K is cheaper than the 1700X and the 1800X... The 7700K is more capable in games than Ryzen. Ryzen is more capable than the 7700K in productivity tasks... Optimization? You do know that most games are optimized for 4C/8T CPUs, right? 

 

is a 7700k cheaper than a 1700 and performs multitasking better? can it play all games at least 1440p 60fps 1080p 60fps 1440p 60fps? than its not a i5 and its a good cpu that will work for a lot of people. for pure gaming a 7700k is the best but for work/ gaming a ryzen or x99 can't be beat. 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

work/ gaming

For work first and gaming second, sure. But for strictly gaming, just get an i7.

[The Sloth]

Just now, AnonymousGuy said:

The 1800X launches and everyone suddenly thinks they have workloads that need 8 cores.  

 

The only scenario where I see buying Ryzen would be someone who was shopping for a 6900K and then wants to trade $500 savings for a more unreliable platform.

 

...its a new platform also a 500 usd cpu that performs better/ keeps pace with a 1k cpu is impressive, its not "unreliable". 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

3 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

That's an unrealistic test for gaming, but it does show the multi-threaded performance.

 

Well that's quite realistic for me. Heh. But my fps dips. 

 

PLEASE 

 

Someone with a 7700K do this pointless test for me 

[Guest Darth Revan]

38 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

AMD had the EXACT same argument with Bulldozer and well... We know how that went.... Don't bank on developers optimizing for Ryzen...

Precisely. I don't understand why people keep saying to wait 6 months or whatever period, in order for developers to optimize for Ryzen.

What people fail to understand is that the current games and programs almost 100% won't get any patches whatsoever for Ryzen. Plus this is a CPU, not a GPU where you can actually optimize it later with drives.

So you can only bank on future programs and games getting optimized for Ryzen, which no one knows if it will happen. You can only look at Bulldozer and ... yeah.

Buying Ryzen right now is a gamble.

[WMGroomAK]

14 minutes ago, Vode said:

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

 

 

I think this is WCCFs write up of the test...  If this is correct, as a part of the testing, they disabled half of the L3 cache to make it a 4 core 8MB L3 system.  Of course as a part of the test, they also set the Clock speeds of the modified R7 and 7700k equivalent, so it is more of an IPC comparison...  Intel still has a slight IPC edge (although probably not as comfortable as they would like) and can still reach higher effective clock speeds, which is where the 7700k does shine.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-4-core-benchmarks-intel-core-i7-7700k/

[Valentyn]

21 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

That's an unrealistic test for gaming, but it does show the multi-threaded performance.

It's lovely for multi-boxing in MMOs though

[WMGroomAK]

5 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

And no, the onus is on the OS/software provider to optimize and properly work with new hardware. AMD is a hardware, not software business

I think AMD does have some responsibility to go to developers as well and explain that they need to have optimizations for their new architecture/hardware.  Some developers stop providing any kinds of patches and optimizations after a certain amount of market time has passed for their product.  Mainly because they are working on releasing their next iteration.  Other times, developers may not realize that their software will have an issue with an architecture change of a this scale.   

[PlayStation 2]

This thread really went to shit.

Once again, I'll repeat what I've said far too many times: Ryzen's rollout was meant to compete with Haswell/Broadwell IPC-wise. And it does that really well FWIW. Comparing it to Kaby Lake is frankly only useful to see how far it's "behind".

[DarkBlade2117]

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

It is essentially an i5 for gaming compared to Intel's current i7 CPUs.

 

1 hour ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

It isn't utter shit for gaming... Jay didn't compare it to an i7 or an i5. He said that he got perfectly playable framerates with Ryzen, not that he got FPS that was on par with an i7....

 

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

Pretty much most benchmarks had it around the performance of a 7600k/6600k.
So if it's not on par with an i7, well you can bet the next best thing is an i5,
I don't know how Ryzen has changed since launch, hopefully for the better, but i'm not going to argue against the fact that when it comes to gaming that Ryzen's performance has been most marked at the i5 level.

I've heard great things about Ryzen being "smoother" (better frametimes for sure, which is rad) but that doesn't change anything about the frame-rate that's comparable to the i5.

Ehm.. some of you need to notice something. Ryzen excels in what they originally marketed it as. Broadwell-E IPC and multi-threaded workloads at a much lower cost.

Also there are issues right now... be it we ALL expected issues with AM4. It is a new platform and a brand new architecture. Jay stated this a little bit before launch date. Once these issues are fixed... the 1700 will be MUCH closer to the 6700k in terms of performance. Also... while multitasking ect.. the 1700 could see smoother frame rate while gaming. Most of these benchmarks are done on near fresh installs of W10 with little to no background applications running.

To name the two major issues... W10 Scheduler seeing the 16T's as cores and not threads and RAM having issues at higher speeds. These 2 are the main culprits of it and also... The 1700 has much more head room. In the long term, if you expect to keep this CPU for 2+ years the 1700 will likely be the better buy. In programs like Cinebench where it utilizes the threads correctly despite the issue show how much potential Ryzen has as it clearly is on-par with the 6900k. If IPC was that far behind, it would be losing to the 6900k in multi-threaded work loads.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, DarkBlade2117 said:

Ehm.. some of you need to notice something. Ryzen excels in what they originally marketed it as. Broadwell-E IPC and multi-threaded workloads at a much lower cost.

They did market it as the perfect gaming CPU.....

1 minute ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

The 1700 has much more head room. In the long term, if you expect to keep this CPU for 2+ years the 1700 will likely be the better buy.

Let me check my crystal ball...

[Mr.Meerkat]

34 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Has X99's performance changed?

Has the X99 platform matured to the point where using DDR4 is no longer a shit storm? Yep 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

Has the X99 platform matured to the point where using DDR4 is no longer a shit storm? Yep 

 

Yes! But performance has not changed. This was my point

[DarkBlade2117]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Let me check my crystal ball...

No fucking crystal ball needed. It is an 8c/16t CPU with IPC levels of Broadwell-E at just about 65% cheaper. When gaming and the 1700 is sitting at 40-50% usage it clearly shows that it can do much more. With microcode, W10 scheduler to be fixed and the RAM issue... It will pull ahead MUCH closer to the 7700k and even then... AMD NEVER marketed it at Kaby IPC. Also... As many have reported.. gaming on the 1700 was a "smoother" experience due to less drops ect

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

They did market it as the perfect gaming CPU.....

Originally marketed it as.

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, DarkBlade2117 said:

No fucking crystal ball needed. It is an 8c/16t CPU with IPC levels of Broadwell-E at just about 65% cheaper. When gaming and the 1700 is sitting at 40-50% usage it clearly shows that it can do much more.

But how do you know that games will be able to use this additional 50%?

1 minute ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Originally marketed it as.

So they did market it as...

[Misanthrope]

Eh, I think 6 cores will be a happy medium specially since apparently without those other 2 cores it will probably clock significantly higher making up for enough of the IPC disadvantage that it would make sense. At least I hope that ends up being the case.