Ryzen 5 is overrated.

[minervx]

I'm sorry for the clickbaity title.  It's a great CPU for a meaningful niche of people, but it's double the price of a Ryzen 3 ($100) more.  Maybe it's 20-30% better based on practical benchmarks.

 

If you have (or plan on buying) a monitor over 60 Hz and you want to game at high frame rates, definitely go with Ryzen 5.

 

If you are passionate about content creation and want to edit videos in 4K, definitely go for it.  But if you're just a dilletante like myself who claims to have aspirations to create professional content but just spends most of his time browsing the net and playing Overwatch, don't waste your money.

 

  For a lot of budget and mid-range builds, there are more impactful ways to invest the money: a solid state drive for sure, a good pair of headphones, a device to improve your network speed (if its faulty), putting it toward a video or a high resolution monitor or toward even a very comfortable chair.

[Crunchy Dragon]

I'm aiming for Coffee Lake by this time next year, probably be playing 1440p @ 144Hz or so. Also, I thought refresh rate and resolution depended mostly on graphics power, not CPU

[Cookybiscuit]

Just now, minervx said:

but it's double the price of a Ryzen 3 ($100) more.  Maybe it's 20-30% better based on practical benchmarks.

Unless you only consider gaming to be a practical benchmark, no it isn't. Ryzen 5 it's almost 2x as fast as Ryzen 3 provided the application can take advantage of the cores.

 

 

[Drak3]

Ryzen as a whole is overrated. Beyond delivering Haswell level performance for most consumer workloads for a decently lesser amount of scratch, it's nothing new. Basically, everything in the x86 world post Haswell is heavily overrated.

[dizmo]

Personally I'd go for an i3 8100, and will do on my next build since I'm just aiming to hit 60 fps.

[Stevoisboss]

Kinda totally depends. And I would always recommend a 1600 over a 1300x over other upgrades if you have the budget. (besides gpu)  

[Drak3]

Just now, CUDA_Cores said:

Life is overrated

Everything is overrated.

 

Except sex. That is grossly overrated.

[Drak3]

Just now, CUDA_Cores said:

except shrek. Shrek is underrated

Shrek is excessively overrated. Almost as much as Overwatch Overhype.

[Light-Yagami]

4 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Unless you only consider gaming to be a practical benchmark, no it isn't. Ryzen 5 it's almost 2x as fast as Ryzen 3 provided the application can take advantage of the cores.

 

 

Ryzen 3 = 4 cores

Ryzen 5 = 6 cores

 

It has 50% more cores. If it scaled perfectly, and it doesn't, it would be 50% faster. 

What you're saying makes no sense. 

 

Or maybe if you don't overclock them at all. Since Ryze 3 runs on slower frequency.

[Drak3]

Just now, CUDA_Cores said:

is there anything underrated?

Charleston Chew.

[WMGroomAK]

3 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

is there anything underrated?

Klondike Bars! Just look at what people will do for one.

[Cookybiscuit]

4 minutes ago, Light-Yagami said:

Ryzen 3 = 4 cores

Ryzen 5 = 6 cores

 

It has 50% more cores. If it scaled perfectly, and it doesn't, it would be 50% faster. 

What you're saying makes no sense. 

 

Or maybe if you don't overclock them at all. Since Ryze 3 runs on slower frequency.

1600X scores 1200 Cinebench points, 1300 only gets 600 points.

[Cookybiscuit]

2 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

in-game

That's where I stopped reading.

[Cookybiscuit]

Just now, CUDA_Cores said:

You sound like an ostrich buying their head in the sand because they refuse to acknowledge the truth. 

I guess only a retard would buy a TR 1950X then, the R3 1200 is like 10% the price and offers 90% the performance by your measure.

[AresKrieger]

28 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Unless you only consider gaming to be a practical benchmark, no it isn't. Ryzen 5 it's almost 2x as fast as Ryzen 3 provided the application can take advantage of the cores.

For clarity it's 50% faster at the same clock speed not 2x, and only if the software scales 1:1 with core count

[Ithanul]

Seriously, an individual should not look at those CPUs if just gaming, unless an individual really don't mind blowing money on one.

 

On the issue of benchmarks, benchmarks should never be taken as showing real world performance for applications.  At most for ball parking performance depending on benchmark.  That where looking at reviews showing what a chip can do in either a variety of games, rendering applications, editing, etc. are best for finding that info.

[spat55]

26 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Ryzen as a whole is overrated. Beyond delivering Haswell level performance for most consumer workloads for a decently lesser amount of scratch, it's nothing new. Basically, everything in the x86 world post Haswell is heavily overrated.

Ryzen has bought 8c/16t to the mainstream forcing Intel to start thinking about doing the same, AMD will continue to refine Ryzen which will make it even more competitive.

[Cookybiscuit]

4 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

For clarity it's 50% faster at the same clock speed not 2x, and only if the software scales 1:1 with core count

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_3_1200_and_1300x_review,15.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_3_1200_and_1300x_review,17.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_3_1200_and_1300x_review,11.html

 

I'm not very good at maths, but those 1300X to 1600X numbers look bigger than 50% increases to me.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, spat55 said:

Ryzen has bought 8c/16t to the mainstream forcing Intel to start thinking about doing the same, AMD will continue to refine Ryzen which will make it even more competitive.

The only thing that Intel was forced to do was speed up release dates. As for the whole "Ryzen brought the whole 8c/16t to the mainstream," that's a lie. Ryzen 7 brought it to the same chipset, but it is not a mainstream chip and realistically, won't outperform any Haswell+ i7 for most tasks consumers have, and will be outmoded by the time 8 cores is worthwhile.

 

And to be quite frank, Epyc is the only product of the entire Ryzen stack that is really any sort of accomplishment, and even then, it's nothing special.

[AresKrieger]

11 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_3_1200_and_1300x_review,15.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_3_1200_and_1300x_review,17.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_3_1200_and_1300x_review,11.html

 

I'm not very good at maths, but those 1300X to 1600X numbers look bigger than 50% increases to me.

I really don't care about bench marks that use score based systems as the metrics often don't scale 1:1 with performance, and thus they don't tell you anything about performance, as for the handbrake numbers it is ~50% slightly off but there can be variance in numbers even while testing the same exact chip so its close enough to call 50%

 

But regardless of any of this it cannot actually perform better than 50% greater logically as only 50% more performance was added, so it wouldn't matter anyway I could simply write it off to amd driver variance

 

 

[minervx]

48 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Unless you only consider gaming to be a practical benchmark, no it isn't. Ryzen 5 it's almost 2x as fast as Ryzen 3 provided the application can take advantage of the cores.

Provided the person can take advantage of those cores. 

 

That's been my only argument.  Yes, it is much much faster if you are using all of the cores at once.  But how often will this occur for the majority of users?

 

Let's say 90% of the time you only need 4 cores, and maybe 10% of the time, those extra cores will double your performance.  That's a whopping 5% performance boost from those extra cores.

 

What percentage of people here are actually edit 4K videos on a frequent basis?  5%?

 

[William Payne]

The problem I see is that people place a big deal on "More Cores!!!!" but the reality is if your software doesn't take advantage of those cores and you aren't multi tasking then it doesn't matter. In fact there are cases where more cores will slow down your performance due to poor use of cores in software. 

 

You need to know what is going to be best for what you are doing. Is it clock speed per core or core quantity. 

 

People say that thread ripper is the greatest thing but with that many cores there are use cases where it outright sucks because the software only takes advantage of maybe half of the cores

 

Its like in gaming there is a reason the 7700k was king, now if you are multitasking and taking advantage of the more cores then yeah go for more cores.

 

People say that developers will take advantage of more cores in time but people have been saying that a long time. 

[minervx]

Just now, William Payne said:

 

People say that developers will take advantage of more cores in time but people have been saying that a long time. 

 

They probably will, but by then, it'll be a different landscape.

 

In 2020, we'll probably have a Ryzen 3 3200 for $100 that outperforms the Ryzen 5 1600.

[Cookybiscuit]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

I really don't care about bench marks that use score based systems as the metrics often don't scale 1:1 with performance, and thus they don't tell you anything about performance

 

You don't care about compression, encoding and physics simulation benchmarks on a CPU? Would you prefer if we compared the CPUs by their ability to be used as a drinks coaster, what the packaging looks like or what they smell like? 

 

3 minutes ago, minervx said:

What percentage of people here are actually edit 4K videos on a frequent basis?  5%?

 

Probably not many, but as you've already noticed, not everyone is building a PC to play games. A CPU being more useful than another in a different category of performance does not make it "overrated", a 6950X is not "overrated" for someone who makes Youtube videos for a living. I agree though that the influx of "I stream and encode video all the time!!!" people since Ryzen's release last year is totally artificial.

[William Payne]

Just now, Cookybiscuit said:

You don't care about compression, encoding and physics simulation benchmarks on a CPU? Would you prefer if we compared the CPUs by their ability to be used as a drinks coaster, what the packaging looks like or what they smell like? 

 

Probably not many, but as you've already noticed, not everyone is building a PC to play games. A CPU being more useful than another in a different category of performance does not make it "overrated", a 6950X is not "overrated" for someone who makes Youtube videos for a living. I agree though that the influx of "I stream and encode video all the time!!!" people since Ryzen's release last year is totally artificial.

The use cases you are mentioning is very user specific and something only a percentage of the population is doing. The mass population of this forum is i'm guessing only trying to build the best pc to game on, maybe the odd other thing. 

 

Those with specific use cases should research the software optimisation and hardware needs and purchase accordingly.