Who started the lie that ryzen has better minimums?Who is actually faking the results?

[MyName13]

It's clear that i7 7700k, even at stock, has better minimums than r7 1700, same thing is true even when comparing overclocked r7 with stock i7, then there's r5 and i5.R5 1600 still doesn't have better minimums than i5 7600k,

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500x-review-fading-i5-argument/page-4

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2827-amd-r7-1700-review-amd-competes-with-its-1800x

 

why do people say that 1600 crushes i5 when it's clear that they are equal in the worst case scenario and in the best case scenario i5 is better, if not much better, than r5.What the hell is going on?

Then there's a huge difference between hardware unboxed's benchmarks and hardware canucks in blender (unlocked i3 vs r3), hardware unboxed also shows much different performance when compared to gamers nexus gaming benchmarks, who is skewing the results (compare their performance in BF1, pentium vs r3 vs i5 7400/7500)?

 

Some guys that first started using 1% minimums and don't advertise products in their background, or some guy who started using minimums just a month ago and advertises products like google?

 

FYI, I'm not favoring any company here or defending somene, but there is something really wrong with the benchmarks and it's clear that someone is bribed.Compare digital foundry's i5 7600k benchmark with the r5 1600 vs i5 7600k benchmark, notice how i5 stuttered less when they reviewed it in january and how much it stutters now in the new video (also notice how they just talk about that cherry picked crysis 3 scene, what's the deal with that?).

[HKZeroFive]

Why is it your instinctive reaction to immediately settle on the conclusion that someone is being bribed? Results can vary, y'know. 

[Majestic]

depends on what you're comparing

 

 

[MyName13]

3 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Why is it your instinctive reaction to immediately settle on the conclusion that someone is being bribed? Results can vary, y'know. 

They can vary, but not this much.

 

[MasterApoc]

I would suggest to watch this video:

 

(And maybe the first 2 parts)

There IS something to the fact that ryzen runs "smoother"( at least in GTAV). Tho like they state in the first 2 videos its not realy noticeable. 

[DannyRyu]

many things could be the reason or it might just be a coincidence or misinterpreted and no one might have any bad intentions at all.

How ever from a budget/consumer standpoint the Ryzen chips make much more sense so I wouldn't really complain.

lower or similar prices, getting very similar performance and more cores/thread more and more games and software are using more core/threads + competition is a good thing.

now if the results are being changed on purpose that's bad but. who honestly buys cpu's after looking at the Minimums?

[JuztBe]

DF also showed assassins creed scene, not just crysis 3. Compared to old bench stuttering is similar. Simply graph was extended a bit more.  But comparing them side by side when looking at numbers it looks really similar.

 

 

- Old one
 

 

 

 

 

 - New one
 

 

 

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, DannyRyu said:

many things could be the reason or it might just be a coincidence or misinterpreted and no one might have any bad intentions at all.

How ever from a budget/consumer standpoint the Ryzen chips make much more sense so I wouldn't really complain.

lower or similar prices, getting very similar performance and more cores/thread more and more games and software are using more core/threads + competition is a good thing.

now if the results are being changed on purpose that's bad but. who honestly buys cpu's after looking at the Minimums?

Wasn't that the main argument for buying ryzen over inte's cpus?

[DannyRyu]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Wasn't that the main argument for buying ryzen over inte's cpus?

I'd consider it more core/threads and getting close to intel IPC at the same price. That is the biggest selling point.

Gonna watch the video you posted and compare, might be missing something.

[MyName13]

3 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

DF also showed assassins creed scene, not just crysis 3. Compared to old bench stuttering is similar. Simply graph was extended a bit more. Old video starts from 0ms ends to 300ms. In new one it starts from 40ms ends at 280ms, that's why it looks bigger. But comparing them side by side when looking at numbers it looks really similar.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

- Old one
 

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 - New one
 

 

 

 

Compare the end of the far cry primal scene.In the first one it sits at maybe 10ms, in the second one it sharply drops to almost 30ms few times.

[JuztBe]

3 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Compare the end of the far cry primal scene.In the first one it sits at maybe 10ms, in the second one it drops to almost 30ms.

I haven't seen any dip to 30 at new video. Dips up to 15 from quick rewatch. Tell specific time.

[Jumper118]

The 7700k is obsolete anyway because Intel next i7 will have 50% more cores so why does it matter

[MyName13]

3 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

I haven't seen any dip to 30 at new video. Dips up to 15 from quick rewatch. Tell specific time.

 and the old one

 

[DannyRyu]

hmm the BF 1 does have a 20fps difference on the minimums but if BF1 doesn't have an ingame benchmark that can't really be a good way to show this because they may have used different maps/situations.

we already know that with Ryzen RAM speeds matter a lot so I actually don't think there is enough information to say they are lying or anything.

[MyName13]

Just now, DannyRyu said:

hmm the BF 1 does have a 20fps difference on the minimums but if BF1 doesn't have an ingame benchmark that can't really be a good way to show this because they may have used different maps/situations.

we already know that with Ryzen RAM speeds matter a lot so I actually don't think there is enough information to say they are lying or anything.

Ah, ram.Another problem with ryzen and yet some benchmarks have shown that it doesn't make nearly as much difference as people say, most benchmarks show overclocked ryzen + 3.2GHz ram against stock intel + 2.4 GHz ram, that isn't a fair comparison.

[DannyRyu]

11 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Ah, ram.Another problem with ryzen and yet some benchmarks have shown that it doesn't make nearly as much difference as people say, most benchmarks show overclocked ryzen + 3.2GHz ram against stock intel + 2.4 GHz ram, that isn't a fair comparison.

I've seen Ryzen gain like 5~10 fps from higher speed ram in benchmarks.

I haven't seen anyone pit OC'd ryzen vs stock intel. that's just a retarded benchmark we know Intel's CPU's don't gain much performance with RAM so I don't see that being much of an issue

 

also the longer you play the game it will allow more frame drops etc. I think you are honestly over thinking it and throwing accusations without enough evidence.

Benchmarks them selves will be different especially with games without built in benchmarks.

Not trying to be an asshole or rude so don't take it the wrong way.

 

 

[JuztBe]

5 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

 and the old one

 

Yeah, seems like there's a difference. But differences doen't look big enough to call call it a sabotage or conspiracy theory. After all tests were taken after a long time, a lot of factors we don't know could've impacted it slightly. 

[MyName13]

6 minutes ago, DannyRyu said:

I've seen Ryzen gain like 5~10 fps from higher speed ram in benchmarks.

 

 

also the longer you play the game it will allow more frame drops etc. I think you are honestly over thinking it and throwing accusations without enough evidence.

 

 

 

So did I.I showed few benchmarks, isn't that enough?

 

4 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

Yeah, seems like there's a difference. But differences doen't look big enough to call call it a sabotage or conspiracy theory. After all tests were taken after a long time, a lot of factors we don't know could've impacted it slightly. 

Doesn't look big enough?There's around 20ms difference between these benchmarks, in the first one it was almost a flat line and in the second one it's almost a stuttery mess.When did I mention sabotage or conspiracy theories?

[DannyRyu]

anyways, too many variables including some of these don't even have In-game benchmarks.

it's pretty clear at this point your mind is set on the reviewers are getting paid or something.

I personally don't think there is enough evidence and too WAAAAAY too many variables to say if anything malicious is going on but

Please don't turn questions into statements.

it's making more impressionable people think that there is an issue when there likely is not.

 

[MyName13]

Just now, DannyRyu said:

anyways, too many variables including some of these don't even have In-game benchmarks.

 

it's pretty clear at this point your mind is set on the reviewers are getting paid or something.

I personally don't think there is enough evidence and too WAAAAAY too many variables to say if anything malicious is going on but

 

it's making more impressionable people think that there is an issue when there likely is not.

 

1)Which only shows how most benchmarks are unreliable.

2)What else am I supposed to believe into if these benchmarkers are reputable?

3)Which is why it's wrong to say that ryzen crushes kaby lake in minimums when it doesn't.

[ravenshrike]

Ryzen both has better absolute minimums(Not 1%/0.1%) and a significantly narrower framerate band. Which makes for an objectively smoother experience. Now whether people can subjectively tell in double blind tests is the question. Unfortunately nobody does those because they're expensive.

[MyName13]

Just now, ravenshrike said:

Ryzen both has better absolute minimums(Not 1%/0.1%) and a significantly narrower framerate band. Which makes for an objectively smoother experience. Now whether people can subjectively tell in double blind tests is the question. Unfortunately nobody does those because they're expensive.

What are those absolute minimums?

 

About framerate band, nobody ever shows them, I've been saying that average frame times are far better than 1% lows and yet nobody pays attention.

[JuztBe]

25 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

So did I.I showed few benchmarks, isn't that enough?

 

Doesn't look big enough?There's around 20ms difference between these benchmarks, in the first one it was almost a flat line and in the second one it's almost a stuttery mess.When did I mention sabotage or conspiracy theories?

I meant it in a bigger picture. It's only stuttering at those last 5 seconds. Rest of the far cry primal bench was solid.

[ravenshrike]

Just now, MyName13 said:

What are those absolute minimums?

Watch the Level 1 Tech video. The 7700k has the occasional frametime that spikes into 100-150+ millisecond territory. Ryzen never gets higher than 40 milliseconds. Those frametimes are rare enough that they don't significantly impact even the 0.1% numbers, but they are noticeable when you come across them in gaming.

[HKZeroFive]

1 hour ago, MyName13 said:

They can vary, but not this much.

...and that somehow means someone is being bribed? That's a pretty serious accusation right there.

 

You've gone into this thinking that the variables for both reviews are the exact same, when in reality it's probably not the case. Testing methodology is going to be different from reviewer to reviewer.

 

For example, what about settings? What about the area of the game being tested? What about the fact that HU seems to be benchmarking BF1 multiplayer while GN is benchmarking single player? Point being is that there are an enormous amount of factors to consider that can affect the end result. And a large reason why you shouldn't look at just one review; look at a wide variety of reviews and make your conclusion from there.

 

I will agree that the i7-7700K's minimums/frametime are just as good or better than the R7 1700 in games... but the i5-7600K's being better than the R5 1600? Doubt it.