Jump to content

Ryzen 5 1600 vs i7-7800X: Ryzen 1080p Gaming Issues Explained; 7700k still King

From Steve over at Hardware Unboxed/TechSpot.

 

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/

 

Quote

Far Cry Primal is a funny game and it was one of the few titles that really baffled us when testing Ryzen for the first time. The performance was just so much lower than expected when compared to the 7700K and yet we found the exact same thing with the 7800X. In fact, the 7800X and R5 1600 deliver similar numbers in this title and overall their performance was decent, frame rates never dipped below 60fps so it was a smooth experience at all times.

 

FC.png

 

Spoiler

TR.png

Warhammer1.png

FC.png

Average.png

 

So, this should be a fun one. My thoughts:

 

This has been a roaming discussion point since the Ryzen 7 launched and some of the issues with 1080p Gaming. Obviously, there have been a lot of tweaks for a large slew of games to improve performance on the Ryzen CPUs, but there's still been a disconnect in how well games perform on the 1080 or 1080 Ti between Intel & AMD platforms. (1070 and below GPUs don't see this issue, as CPU demands increases as GPU demands do. There's a saturation issue for the super-high FPS processing.) With the launch of Skylake-X, the first run of Gaming benchmarks pointed to Skylake-X performing like Ryzen CPUs do in most gaming titles.  Thanks to Steve's massive review, we can now see that's true.

 

From the actual review, at stock speeds, the Ryzen 5 1600 is about 5% slower than the stock i7-7800X. With both OC'd, there is no difference. (See the last graph posted.)  Stock differences is simply down to clock speed (Intel: 3.5 / 4.0 vs AMD: 3.2 / 3.6). What is important is that both the Ryzen CPUs and the Skylake-X CPUs use a "victim" Cache for the L3 and operate over a different core-to-core interconnect system compared to the 7700k. A few of us have conjectured, recently, that the issue with the 1080/TI class GPUs is actually some form of optimization that Nvidia has found with either the Ring Bus or the L3 Cache system on Intel's Sandy Bridge to Current platforms. This is why Skylake-X gaming performance is slower in a lot of cases with Skylake-X than the 7700k or even the previous X99 platform CPUs. 

 

It should be noted that the 7700k is still King. What design Intel is using for the Interconnect system is on the upcoming Coffee Lake CPUs is, thusly, going to be incredibly important. If they do switch to the new Mesh Interconnect, Coffee Lake could be a performance regression in Gaming. We'll find out about that here soon when Intel announces the product line. [Some other poking around says Coffee Lake is just Kaby Lake's design + 2 cores for the 6c parts. ]

 

Considering that Infinity Fabric & Mesh are here to stay, it'll be interesting to watch AMD & Nvidia both approach Drivers for their GPUs over the coming years. They've spent a long time optimizing for Intel's architecture, but now it's all going in a very different direction.

 

Last, but a Side Point: The L3 Cache/Ring Bus issue could actually explain AMD's "Finewine" issue. Nvidia's entire structure gives them a noticeable bump in FPS from specific optimizations (likely of the scheduler in software) of Intel CPUs. AMD GPUs end up better as they update to replicate that effect in each specific game. If that effect is around ~15%, it would explain "Finewine", Nvidia's generally better launches and the Theoretical vs Real Performance differences that happen in the Nvidia vs AMD GPU discussions. (AMD's compute is better at the same Gaming performance as Nvidia.) It'll be interesting to see if that is truly the case, as it would finally solve one of the hilarious oddities in the tech industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant watch the video currently but are we acting shocked that a 4.9ghz 7700k is faster than a 4.0ghz 1600?

and at $224.00 vs the i7s $330.00 price point with that performance difference "king" is technically right but...not to anyone with any kind of monetary sense.

CPU: Intel i5 4690k W/Noctua nh-d15 GPU: Gigabyte G1 980 TI MOBO: MSI Z97 Gaming 5 RAM: 16Gig Corsair Vengance Boot-Drive: 500gb Samsung Evo Storage: 2x 500g WD Blue, 1x 2tb WD Black 1x4tb WD Red

 

 

 

 

"Whatever AMD is losing in suddenly becomes the most important thing ever." - Glenwing, 1/13/2015

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets be honest here, unless you have a variable high refresh rate display and a compatible GPU from either camp.......that "King" title is 100% useless. 

Laptop: 2019 16" MacBook Pro i7, 512GB, 5300M 4GB, 16GB DDR4 | Phone: iPhone 13 Pro Max 128GB | Wearables: Apple Watch SE | Car: 2007 Ford Taurus SE | CPU: R7 5700X | Mobo: ASRock B450M Pro4 | RAM: 32GB 3200 | GPU: ASRock RX 5700 8GB | Case: Apple PowerMac G5 | OS: Win 11 | Storage: 1TB Crucial P3 NVME SSD, 1TB PNY CS900, & 4TB WD Blue HDD | PSU: Be Quiet! Pure Power 11 600W | Display: LG 27GL83A-B 1440p @ 144Hz, Dell S2719DGF 1440p @144Hz | Cooling: Wraith Prism | Keyboard: G610 Orion Cherry MX Brown | Mouse: G305 | Audio: Audio Technica ATH-M50X & Blue Snowball | Server: 2018 Core i3 Mac mini, 128GB SSD, Intel UHD 630, 16GB DDR4 | Storage: OWC Mercury Elite Pro Quad (6TB WD Blue HDD, 12TB Seagate Barracuda, 1TB Crucial SSD, 2TB Seagate Barracuda HDD)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

I cant watch the video currently but are we acting shocked that a 4.9ghz 7700k is faster than a 4.0ghz 1600?

and at $224.00 vs the i7s $330.00 price point with that performance difference "king" is technically right but...not to anyone with any kind of monetary sense.

If we take that one example, the FPS per dollar is better on the i7 (at about $0.39 per frame/sec) than the R5-1600 (at about $0.45 per frame/sec) at stock speeds.

 

That may not be the case for other games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryzen 5 1600 is ~$125 cheaper than the i7-7700k (According to newegg). You haven't talked about the price of the processors as that is one of Ryzen's important selling points. If you look at other games, the Ryzen and i7 perform similarly.

Current Build

Successful Builds

Spoiler
Spoiler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

If we take that one example, the FPS per dollar is better on the i7 (at about $0.39 per frame/sec) than the R5-1600 (at about $0.45 per frame/sec) at stock speeds.

 

That may not be the case for other games.

As he noted that example is an outlier. in fact if you read the artical the last few lines paragraphs say the following

 
Quote

 

If you care at all about value, the Ryzen 5 1600 is clearly the way to go. This is why we recently named it the best value performance desktop CPU. It was unlikely that the Core i7-7800X was going to change that, but we hoped the performance would at least be a compelling reason to buy Intel's new six-core processor.

Ryzen will hit 4GHz with the box cooler but it will be a more mild experience with a $20 aftermarket cooler like the Cooler Master 212, so keep that in mind. The 7800X on the other hand cannot be overclocked to 4.7GHz using a 240mm AIO closed loop solution. Instead, it required a $380 custom loop setup to achieve that result.

 


and

 

 

Quote

Compared to the 7800X, the R5 1600 deliveres a similar experience once overclocked and even at stock it was just 4% slower throughout our benchmarks. It also consumes less power, costs considerably less, and comes with a better cooler out of the box. The Ryzen 5 1600 is the obvious choice for gamers.

and

 
Quote

Before we get to our great graph of averages, it's worth noting that after spending an extra two days confirming these results (mostly re-testing and comparing the Core i7-7700K and Ryzen 5 1600), we can say that while these chips are strangely close in performance, our figures are accurate.



 

 

The only example posted in here is the farcry which has the 1600 at a "baffling" low number.

Looking at the list of average framerates across all tested games the 1600 and the i7 won the same ammount with 14 wins and losses each...
Total.png


The title of this post confuses me. The techspot post  seems to be on a note of the 1600 being overwhelmingly positive and the title of this LTT post seems to think there's an issue.


Edit: I still dont like the layout but i understand why it was done.

CPU: Intel i5 4690k W/Noctua nh-d15 GPU: Gigabyte G1 980 TI MOBO: MSI Z97 Gaming 5 RAM: 16Gig Corsair Vengance Boot-Drive: 500gb Samsung Evo Storage: 2x 500g WD Blue, 1x 2tb WD Black 1x4tb WD Red

 

 

 

 

"Whatever AMD is losing in suddenly becomes the most important thing ever." - Glenwing, 1/13/2015

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Brainless906

 

Well, there was a lot going on. The baseline test is the R5 1600 vs 7800X vs 7700k, w/ OC results. There's solid testing on its own.  7700k wins on pure performance, R5 1600 is the far & away Price-to-Performance winner, and the testing shows something that's been conjectured about why the Ryzen 1080p gaming was behind the 7700k so far. Hint: it's because of some tricks with the 1080/1080Ti class cards & Nvidia's drivers.

 

I tried to fit it all into the headline as best I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

If we take that one example, the FPS per dollar is better on the i7 (at about $0.39 per frame/sec) than the R5-1600 (at about $0.45 per frame/sec) at stock speeds.

 

That may not be the case for other games.

Let's just use minimums since that is the most important factor. The 7700k is currently $340 and the 1600 is $215.

 

7700k: 111 fps

1600: 95 fps

 

By your own calculation, the 1600 beats the 7700k. You will get 0.44 frames per dollar with the 1600 and only 0.32 fps/dollar from the 7700k. Fixed your typo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Brainless906 said:

I cant watch the video currently but are we acting shocked that a 4.9ghz 7700k is faster than a 4.0ghz 1600?

and at $224.00 vs the i7s $330.00 price point with that performance difference "king" is technically right but...not to anyone with any kind of monetary sense.

We're shocked that the 7800X performs the same as Ryzen 5 1600. You OC both and they still perform the same. Despite a 700 MHz difference they perform the same. They're both way slower than 7700K. 

The massive OC on the 7800X does nothing. It's running at 4.7 GHz vs 4.9 on the 7700K and they're miles apart. 4.7 GHz vs 4.0 on the 1600 and they're the same. It makes no sense. Intel has the clock speed and IPC advantage and they're neck and neck. There is clearly a bottleneck somewhere and/or optimizations that favor the 7700K that goes beyond vendor optimizations. 

If the victim cache is so detrimental to performance then I would assume both AMD and Intel will work towards changing the L3 cache for the next iteration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Trixanity said:

We're shocked that the 7800X performs the same as Ryzen 5 1600. You OC both and they still perform the same. Despite a 700 MHz difference they perform the same. They're both way slower than 7700K. 

The massive OC on the 7800X does nothing. It's running at 4.7 GHz vs 4.9 on the 7700K and they're miles apart. 4.7 GHz vs 4.0 on the 1600 and they're the same. It makes no sense. Intel has the clock speed and IPC advantage and they're neck and neck. There is clearly a bottleneck somewhere and/or optimizations that favor the 7700K that goes beyond vendor optimizations. 

If the victim cache is so detrimental to performance then I would assume both AMD and Intel will work towards changing the L3 cache for the next iteration.

The L3 Cache systems are here to stay. They're necessary for massively multi-core processors. The issue is that Nvidia found some impressive Optimizations (read: tricks) to get a lot more out of the Sandy Bridge-era Ring Bus + Inclusive L3 design.

 

This is really important going forward, as Intel is going to want to optimized their Cores for the Mesh. Why would they bring out extra Ring Bus designs for Desktop CPUs when they're making their cores + subsystems for the Mesh? It's likely we've seen the end of the Ring Bus except for maybe in Mobile/Ultra-low Power. This has big implications for Coffee Lake (the 8700k and the like) and the next Architecture, coming in 2018. 

 

Whenever Intel switches the normal Desktop CPUs over to the Mesh, they're going to see a performance regression in Gaming. That's less to do with not putting in the work/design and far more to do with some oddities of the Sandy Bridge & on designs being able to really push gaming hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Price to performance is all that matter though" 

 

Do people really care that its an extra $100 to get the best gaming, or hell most application performance since most apps are still lacking proper multi core support. It not like its breaking the bank for a decent FPS bump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is, why is he using a GTX 1050 in some of his benchmarks? Why is he capping his framerate? His testing looks flawed. Digital Foundry found that the 7800X often beats the 7740XIMG_0606.PNG.56f21af1380c99e9af50350f215dbc95.PNG.

 

 

CPU: Intel Core i7 7820X Cooling: Corsair Hydro Series H110i GTX Mobo: MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 (3000MHz/16GB 2x8) SSD: 2x Samsung 850 Evo (250/250GB) + Samsung 850 Pro (512GB) GPU: NVidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FE (W/ EVGA Hybrid Kit) Case: Corsair Graphite Series 760T (Black) PSU: SeaSonic Platinum Series (860W) Monitor: Acer Predator XB241YU (165Hz / G-Sync) Fan Controller: NZXT Sentry Mix 2 Case Fans: Intake - 2x Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-3000 PWM / Radiator - 2x Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-3000 PWM / Rear Exhaust - 1x Noctua NF-F12 iPPC-3000 PWM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm i wonder if my complaints on nvidia forums about poor performance in some games made them do this optimise for mainstream quad cores. This needs more testing, grab the lga 1366 and test at stock and overclock as you can overclock the L3 cache on that platform which you cant on others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

lets be honest here, unless you a variable high refresh rate display and a compatible GPU from either camp.......that "King" title is 100% useless. 

I cannot emphasize this enough: For this to be a widespread problem twitch reflex gaming of certain shooters would need to be the majority of titles people actually play when if anything, the tendency nowadays is usually towards slower more story driven or open sandbox games instead of twitch shooters.

 

 

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The L3 Cache systems are here to stay. They're necessary for massively multi-core processors. The issue is that Nvidia found some impressive Optimizations (read: tricks) to get a lot more out of the Sandy Bridge-era Ring Bus + Inclusive L3 design.

 

This is really important going forward, as Intel is going to want to optimized their Cores for the Mesh. Why would they bring out extra Ring Bus designs for Desktop CPUs when they're making their cores + subsystems for the Mesh? It's likely we've seen the end of the Ring Bus except for maybe in Mobile/Ultra-low Power. This has big implications for Coffee Lake (the 8700k and the like) and the next Architecture, coming in 2018. 

 

Whenever Intel switches the normal Desktop CPUs over to the Mesh, they're going to see a performance regression in Gaming. That's less to do with not putting in the work/design and far more to do with some oddities of the Sandy Bridge & on designs being able to really push gaming hard.

I didn't know that about caches. I just figured victim caches are easier/simpler to implement and perhaps inclusive caches become more difficult the more cores it's 'hooked' up to. It seems to me that victim caches are detrimental to performance overall versus inclusive caches and I've noted how victim caches in recent years have been mentioned as a 'bad move' and not providing as big a benefit (not that they're useless I should clarify).

 

Has Intel always used victim caches on their high core count processors or is it a byproduct of the mesh interconnect?

If Intel switches to mesh interconnects for most or all of their products will they also all have victim caches?

Also, is it the mesh or the cache (or both - and if so do they compound or is it a 'chain reaction' (ie. one causing the other) instead of a combination so to speak) causing the performance issue? It's hard to tell for me as they share a 'similar' interconnect and L3 cache (obviously not the same cache structure but you get the point).

 

I understand why even the lowliest of Ryzens all have victim caches as it's a MCM and they would have to use a cache design that scales from 4 to 32 cores and if there is a cut-off point for where inclusive caches become prohibitive (whether that's 8, 12 or 16 cores) they obviously have to cater to the 'weakest link' meaning they have to use the cache system that works across the entire product stack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

My question is, why is he using a GTX 1050 in some of his benchmarks? Why is he capping his framerate? His testing looks flawed. Digital Foundry found that the 7800X often beats the 7740X

This is just a demo, but he is the only reviewer who is using an AsRock board. So, we don't know if this is just a BIOS bug. He needs to re-test using a different board IMO 

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K | Motherboard: AsRock X99 Extreme4 | Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming | RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws4 2133MHz | Storage: 1 x Samsung 860 EVO 1TB | 1 x WD Green 2TB | 1 x WD Blue 500GB | PSU: Corsair RM750x | Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro (White) | Cooling: Arctic Freezer i32

 

Mice: Logitech G Pro X Superlight (main), Logitech G Pro Wireless, Razer Viper Ultimate, Zowie S1 Divina Blue, Zowie FK1-B Divina Blue, Logitech G Pro (3366 sensor), Glorious Model O, Razer Viper Mini, Logitech G305, Logitech G502, Logitech G402

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This is just a demo, but he is the only reviewer who is using an AsRock board. So, we don't know if this is just a BIOS bug. He needs to re-test using a different board IMO 

He's not the only one. Tech Yes City, also have one. As does TomsHardware, and TechPowerup.

 

No discernible difference between it and the Asus X299 Deluxe.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-x299-taichi-skylake-x-motherboard,5119-4.html

 

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9P

 

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9P

 

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9P

 

 

He also used a GTX 1080Ti for his CPU tests in that video and on his articles.

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/
 

5950X | NH D15S | 64GB 3200Mhz | RTX 3090 | ASUS PG348Q+MG278Q

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing something? Isn't this a "No Duh kinda thing? i7 vs an R5?? Why are we wasting time comparing the two. 

CPU: Amd 7800X3D | GPU: AMD 7900XTX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

He's not the only one. Tech Yes City, also have one. As does TomsHardware, and TechPowerup.

 

No discernible difference between it and the Asus X299 Deluxe.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-x299-taichi-skylake-x-motherboard,5119-4.html

Yeah, but Salazar was also using an AsRock board and got the same results as Hardware Unboxed with a 7900X. I really don't know, but I believe that this is motherboard related. 

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K | Motherboard: AsRock X99 Extreme4 | Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming | RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws4 2133MHz | Storage: 1 x Samsung 860 EVO 1TB | 1 x WD Green 2TB | 1 x WD Blue 500GB | PSU: Corsair RM750x | Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro (White) | Cooling: Arctic Freezer i32

 

Mice: Logitech G Pro X Superlight (main), Logitech G Pro Wireless, Razer Viper Ultimate, Zowie S1 Divina Blue, Zowie FK1-B Divina Blue, Logitech G Pro (3366 sensor), Glorious Model O, Razer Viper Mini, Logitech G305, Logitech G502, Logitech G402

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This is just a demo, but he is the only reviewer who is using an AsRock board. So, we don't know if this is just a BIOS bug. He needs to re-test using a different board IMO 

What do you mean by demo? Going through the list of games there's a different frequency for memory which tells me he's using different GPU's. At least Digital Foundry was uniform in their testing, using a Titan Xp and overclocking the CPU's to 4.4. Their testing showed that the 7800X beating the 7740X in all but Primal. That's an outlier that apparently doesn't like more than 4 cores.

CPU: Intel Core i7 7820X Cooling: Corsair Hydro Series H110i GTX Mobo: MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 (3000MHz/16GB 2x8) SSD: 2x Samsung 850 Evo (250/250GB) + Samsung 850 Pro (512GB) GPU: NVidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FE (W/ EVGA Hybrid Kit) Case: Corsair Graphite Series 760T (Black) PSU: SeaSonic Platinum Series (860W) Monitor: Acer Predator XB241YU (165Hz / G-Sync) Fan Controller: NZXT Sentry Mix 2 Case Fans: Intake - 2x Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-3000 PWM / Radiator - 2x Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-3000 PWM / Rear Exhaust - 1x Noctua NF-F12 iPPC-3000 PWM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, but Salazar was also using an AsRock board and got the same results as Hardware Unboxed with a 7900X. I really don't know, but I believe that this is motherboard related. 

Makes little sense if other reviews with the same board are getting similar results when compared to Asus and MSI tests.

It looks more like the 7800X is the issue; as the boards all perform the same if they use the 7820X or 7900X.

 

Have you noticed the 7800X is only rated for 2400Mhz, as opposed to all other X299 CPUs? I wonder if it has a weaker IMC, along with defective cores. Could be another reason it's just so pants for gaming.

5950X | NH D15S | 64GB 3200Mhz | RTX 3090 | ASUS PG348Q+MG278Q

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

What do you mean by demo? Going through the list of games there's a different frequency for memory which tells me he's using different GPU's. At least Digital Foundry was uniform in their testing, using a Titan Xp and overclocking the CPU's to 4.4. Their testing showed that the 7800X beating the 7740X in all but Primal. That's an outlier that apparently doesn't like more than 4 cores.

He simply reused stock footage from other tests for the video snippet in the corner. If you want to claim he's specifically faking results you can do so over at his techsport article, or talk to him over social media.


https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/

 

Ma3aFs-pTxmZ78sSh3FLEQ.png

5950X | NH D15S | 64GB 3200Mhz | RTX 3090 | ASUS PG348Q+MG278Q

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

What do you mean by demo? Going through the list of games there's a different frequency for memory which tells me he's using different GPU's. At least Digital Foundry was uniform in their testing, using a Titan Xp and overclocking the CPU's to 4.4. Their testing showed that the 7800X beating the 7740X in all but Primal. That's an outlier that apparently doesn't like more than 4 cores.

I am pretty sure that this is just a screenshot of the benchmark run, not the actual benchmark

2 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

Makes little sense if other reviews with the same board are getting similar results when compared to Asus and MSI tests.

With a 7900X though. Need I remind you that Hardware Unboxed also got worse performance than the 7700K with the 7740X? (Proven wrong by GN's benchmarks)

4 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

It looks more like the 7800X is the issue; as the boards all perform the same if they use the 7820X or 7900X.

 

Have you noticed the 7800X is only rated for 2400Mhz, as opposed to all other X299 CPUs? I wonder if it has a weaker IMC, along with defective cores. Could be another reason it's just so pants for gaming.

I really doubt it, I believe that the AsRock board doesn't work well with the lower end X299 CPUs (The 7800X and the 7740X) 

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K | Motherboard: AsRock X99 Extreme4 | Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming | RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws4 2133MHz | Storage: 1 x Samsung 860 EVO 1TB | 1 x WD Green 2TB | 1 x WD Blue 500GB | PSU: Corsair RM750x | Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro (White) | Cooling: Arctic Freezer i32

 

Mice: Logitech G Pro X Superlight (main), Logitech G Pro Wireless, Razer Viper Ultimate, Zowie S1 Divina Blue, Zowie FK1-B Divina Blue, Logitech G Pro (3366 sensor), Glorious Model O, Razer Viper Mini, Logitech G305, Logitech G502, Logitech G402

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Valentyn said:

He simply reused stock footage from other tests for the video snippet in the corner. If you want to claim he's specifically faking results you can do so over at his techsport article, or talk to him over social media.


https://www.techspot.com/review/1450-core-i7-vs-ryzen-5-hexa-core/

 

Ma3aFs-pTxmZ78sSh3FLEQ.png

I would be much obliged to point out his filmflammery.

CPU: Intel Core i7 7820X Cooling: Corsair Hydro Series H110i GTX Mobo: MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 (3000MHz/16GB 2x8) SSD: 2x Samsung 850 Evo (250/250GB) + Samsung 850 Pro (512GB) GPU: NVidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FE (W/ EVGA Hybrid Kit) Case: Corsair Graphite Series 760T (Black) PSU: SeaSonic Platinum Series (860W) Monitor: Acer Predator XB241YU (165Hz / G-Sync) Fan Controller: NZXT Sentry Mix 2 Case Fans: Intake - 2x Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-3000 PWM / Radiator - 2x Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-3000 PWM / Rear Exhaust - 1x Noctua NF-F12 iPPC-3000 PWM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×