7700k/ 7600k vs Ryzen

[Guest]

3 hours ago, xg32 said:

I really wanted to go ryzen but it just can't game at 120-144hz consistently, reason being ryzen's low single-threaded performance, it's actually weaker than sandy bridge, a 6 year old cpu. Every benchmark I've seen on ryzen screams 60fps gaming for now and the future, which leads to budget builds only (for gaming)

 

Simply not true IPC is between sandy and haswell go find a benchmark that shows it below sandy-bridge on average? 

 

Dolphin emulator is heavily targeted as single core performance yet Ryzen sets between sandy and haswell in that test. 

 

[Blebekblebek]

If it's also for streaming, I don't see any reason why you even list 7600/7700 here.

I wouldn't invest in that, at least go latest gen

 

Ryzen for me.

 

Also, cores do matter nowdays, specially when you streaming.

 

These argument about single core performance, efficiency etc are irrelevant

[Guest]

To get a 7600K would be completely and utterly crazy dead platform 4 cores 4 threads i mean even getting a 7700K is dumb IMO get a coffee-lake 8700K or a B350+1600 build anything else makes a lot less sense. 

[xg32]

1 hour ago, jdwii said:

 

Simply not true IPC is between sandy and haswell go find a benchmark that shows it below sandy-bridge on average? 

 

Dolphin emulator is heavily targeted as single core performance yet Ryzen sets between sandy and haswell in that test. 

 

 

I'm talking strictly gaming, emulators are slightly diffrerent.

 

those results have the 2600k running at 3.8, my old 2600k ran at 4.8, a 3.9 1700 vs a 4.8 2600k would probably tilt it toward the 2600k by a decent margin.

 

this is not the video i saw when i researched this awhile ago, i believe there was even a graph on it on Tom's

 

This was one of the main reason i chose not to upgrade to ryzen before coffee lake was out. The single-threaded performance is just underwhelming. 

 

There has to be a decent improvement for an upgrade, imho this is a sidegrade.

 

I'm sure AMD can fix the clocks with time, 4.5 in a year or so would be interesting.

[Guest]

On 12/23/2017 at 2:49 AM, xg32 said:

 

I'm talking strictly gaming, emulators are slightly diffrerent.

 

those results have the 2600k running at 3.8, my old 2600k ran at 4.8, a 3.9 1700 vs a 4.8 2600k would probably tilt it toward the 2600k by a decent margin.

 

this is not the video i saw when i researched this awhile ago, i believe there was even a graph on it on Tom's

 

This was one of the main reason i chose not to upgrade to ryzen before coffee lake was out. The single-threaded performance is just underwhelming. 

 

There has to be a decent improvement for an upgrade, imho this is a sidegrade.

 

I'm sure AMD can fix the clocks with time, 4.5 in a year or so would be interesting.

Emulators are more about IPC and frequency then games even. After watching that video i laugh even more i mean even in GTA5 it wins it shouldn't win in that game at all even if they are at the same frequency. 

 

Game benchmarks do not offer a realistic and measurable performance on IPC. 

 

Instead i will show you a real credible tech tuber one that i would even pay money for as they make some of the best content on Youtube if you are a gamer+tech geek IMO. 

 

 

Simple fact of the matter is a Intel(EDIT and for the love of god AMD) 4 core 4 threaded CPU in 2017 and beyond is simply a bottleneck a Ryzen 1600 at 3.8Ghz beats a I5 7600K at 4.8ghz. 

 

Pure IPC should be compared among many apps again i say look at all benchmarks for this figure. 

 

Make no joke though if one is getting a 1080 or higher i recommend a 8700K i really do but if one is aiming at a 1070 or lower a R5 1600 is the best budget option. 

 

If i had the choice between a X370+1800x or a 8700K+Z370 i'd take the 8700K every single day hell i'd even think it's worth an extra 100$ if one can afford it. 

[xg32]

1 hour ago, jdwii said:

Emulators are more about IPC and frequency then games even. After watching that video i laugh even more i mean even in GTA5 it wins it shouldn't win in that game at all even if they are at the same frequency. 

 

Game benchmarks do not offer a realistic and measurable performance on IPC. 

 

Instead i will show you a real credible tech tuber one that i would even pay money for as they make some of the best content on Youtube if you are a gamer+tech geek IMO. 

 

 

 

Simple fact of the matter is a Intel(EDIT and for the love of god AMD) 4 core 4 threaded CPU in 2017 and beyond is simply a bottleneck a Ryzen 1600 at 3.8Ghz beats a I5 7600K at 4.8ghz. 

 

Pure IPC should be compared among many apps again i say look at all benchmarks for this figure. 

 

I was more focused on gaming only...but still it was against a 6 year old cpu...of course with any multi-threaded workload ryzen's gonna win, the single threaded performance is bad though (imho more important than ipc), as comparing near max-oc is a more realistic scenario (8700k 5ghz vs 1700/1800x 4ghz for example)

[johnukguy]

7 hours ago, xg32 said:

I really wanted to go ryzen but it just can't game at 120-144hz consistently, reason being ryzen's low single-threaded performance, it's actually weaker than sandy bridge, a 6 year old cpu. Every benchmark I've seen on ryzen screams 60fps gaming for now and the future, which leads to budget builds only (for gaming)

That's funny, I manage to game just fine at over 120 Hz with a Ryzen 1600. And no, a Ryzen 1600 kicks the ass of any Sandy Bridge CPU in gaming. You don't know what you're talking about do you?
 

 

[xg32]

6 hours ago, johnukguy said:

That's funny, I manage to game just fine at over 120 Hz with a Ryzen 1600. And no, a Ryzen 1600 kicks the ass of any Sandy Bridge CPU in gaming. You don't know what you're talking about do you?
 

 

well numerous benchmarks from techtubers show that the r5 lags behind in 120hz+ gaming, even in the video u linked, it's like 15% slower, It barely does 100fps in overwatch and other AAA titles.

 

But hey, if it works for you, good, i'm just glad i went with the 8700k instead. No need to debate whether i do or don't know. I spent alot of time trying to justify a ryzen build, the numbers and the little problems just didn't back it up.

 

Going from 2600k to the 1700 just wasn't enough of an upgrade for gaming (i was comparing 4.8 2600k to 3.8/3.9 1700) ,plus Vega just didn't come out in time, and by the time it did coffee lake was coming.

 

Edit: this shows the single core and gaming performance of the 2600 being on par or in same cases slightly faster than a 1700. From an upgrade perspective it just didn't make sense.

 

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, xg32 said:

well numerous benchmarks from techtubers show that the r5 lags behind in 120hz+ gaming, even in the video u linked, it's like 15% slower, It barely does 100fps in overwatch and other AAA titles.

 

But hey, if it works for you, good, i'm just glad i went with the 8700k instead. No need to debate whether i do or don't know. I spent alot of time trying to justify a ryzen build, the numbers and the little problems just didn't back it up.

 

Going from 2600k to the 1700 just wasn't enough of an upgrade for gaming (i was comparing 4.8 2600k to 3.8/3.9 1700) ,plus Vega just didn't come out in time, and by the time it did coffee lake was coming.

 

Edit: this shows the single core and gaming performance of the 2600 being on par or in same cases slightly faster than a 1700. From an upgrade perspective it just didn't make sense.

 

 

Again 8700K is a better CPU but a 4 core 4 threaded CPU no sorry its not. That video i linked showed the I5 losing whenever action pops up compared to a 1600. I5 runs at like 90% usage and that is why it can't keep up and has nothing else to give that's why Intel finally upgraded their mainstream CPUs to 6 cores something they should have done back with the Haswell refresh. 

 

Understanding the real IPC of these CPU's is interesting note that all of my previous posts state a 8700K is a better option i claim and hold to this claim until Intel prices come down to their MSRP and their mainstream boards come out. Until then Ryzen wins in value but when that day comes the 8400 will be a better option then a 1600 for most people. 

 

I ran countless benchmarks and i always see Ryzen around 10-20% ahead(sometimes more like one example below) of sandy-bridge in IPC take a look here for example(gamernexus is a really good site btw proud that you are using them as a source so i will too)

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-2

 

Take a look at the 2500K OC to 4.5Ghz and compare that to the Ryzen 3 1200 OC to 3.8ghz(since both are a 4C/4T CPU) the 2500K scores around 6.9% higher in Blender compared to the R3 yet its doing that with a 18.4% clock speed advantage in this test Ryzen shows it has 11.5% higher IPC compared to sandy bridge. 

 

That is just one test now lets compare the 2600K to the 1500X both CPU's have 4 cores and 8 threads. Take a look at 3DMark FireStrike the 1500X at 4.0Ghz gets a score that is 12% higher then the 2600K at 4.7Ghz and in that test the 2600K has a 17.5% frequency advantage therefor in this one test Ryzen's IPC is 29.2% higher. 

 

On average Ryzen's IPC is higher then sandy not lower. Infinity fabric, really does hurt Ryzen's gaming performance and lowers its IPC in specific cases but it still remains ahead of sandy bridge but i will argue its below broadwell in these cases. If a application couldn't care less about latency sure Ryzen gets that broadwell like IPC but if not its between sandy(ivy) and haswell. 

 

I wish a techtuber would compare the true IPC of ryzen in multiple tests to older CPU's as both the PC community and Amd themselves generalize the term to much and it would be nice to see where Amd really is in terms of their architecture. 

[xg32]

5 minutes ago, jdwii said:

Again 8700K is a better CPU but a 4 core 4 threaded CPU no sorry its not. That video i linked showed the I5 losing whenever action pops up compared to a 1600. I5 runs at like 90% usage and that is why it can't keep up and has nothing else to give that's why Intel finally upgraded their mainstream CPUs to 6 cores something they should have done back with the Haswell refresh. 

 

Understanding the real IPC of these CPU's is interesting note that all of my previous posts state a 8700K is a better option i claim and hold to this claim until Intel prices come down to their MSRP and their mainstream boards come out. Until then Ryzen wins in value but when that day comes the 8400 will be a better option then a 1600 for most people. 

 

I ran countless benchmarks and i always see Ryzen around 10-20% ahead(sometimes more like one example below) of sandy-bridge in IPC take a look here for example(gamernexus is a really good site btw proud that you are using them as a source so i will too)

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-2

 

Take a look at the 2500K OC to 4.5Ghz and compare that to the Ryzen 3 1200 OC to 3.8ghz(since both are a 4C/4T CPU) the 2500K scores around 6.9% higher in Blender compared to the R3 yet its doing that with a 18.4% clock speed advantage in this test Ryzen shows it has 11.5% higher IPC compared to sandy bridge. 

 

That is just one test now lets compare the 2600K to the 1500X both CPU's have 4 cores and 8 threads. Take a look at 3DMark FireStrike the 1500X at 4.0Ghz gets a score that is 12% higher then the 2600K at 4.7Ghz and in that test the 2600K has a 17.5% frequency advantage therefor in this one test Ryzen's IPC is 29.2% higher. 

 

On average Ryzen's IPC is higher then sandy not lower. Infinity fabric, really does hurt Ryzen's gaming performance and lowers its IPC in specific cases but it still remains ahead of sandy bridge but i will argue its below broadwell in these cases. If a application couldn't care less about latency sure Ryzen gets that broadwell like IPC but if not its between sandy(ivy) and haswell. 

 

I wish a techtuber would compare the true IPC of ryzen in multiple tests to older CPU's as both the PC community and Amd themselves generalize the term to much and it would be nice to see where Amd really is in terms of their architecture. 

I think amd had the right idea with infinity fabric but the clocks just came out way too low, if they can bump ryzen up to 4.4 (given how hard the wall is im not optimstic, unless they improve AND bin the chips), a 1700 at 4.4 for 300 dollars would be scary for intel to deal with.

 

I think the lack of focus on ipc is also due to the 4.0 wall.

[Emberstone]

22 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

That's bullshit because nobody cares no more about 'single core Performance', what counts is the multi core performance.

Especially since modern consoles have 8 cores, games will be optimized for that. 

 

Its cores that mattered in the past, always those CPUs with less cores needed to be replaced sooner than later!
It was true from Single to Dual Core, it was true from Dual to Quad Core, and it will be true today...

"No one cares about single core performance" is absolutely untrue. I own a Ryzen chip and am getting rid of it because of its low single-thread performance. If you're gaming, single-thread performance is most important unless you're one of the six people playing Ashes of the Benchmark.

 

Another issue is optimization. Even though the R5-1600X at 4.0 GHz has around 60% better single-thread performance over my i7-980X, games don't feel like it. I'm not seeing 60% better fps in games that only run on a single thread, like Heroes of the Storm. Some games, like Destiny 2 and Guild Wars 2, actually run worse on the 1600X than my nearly 8-year-old X58 CPU.

 

On top of that, you have to cherry pick your RAM which is really annoying with the current pricing climate DDR4 lives in, and seven months later I still can't get my RAM to run at its full speed (3200 MHz). Even better, the latest BIOS made my RAM unstable at 3066 MHz, where it was previously stable. I have to sit at 2933 now and can't downgrade the BIOS because it changed microcode. The board literally won't recognize old BIOS files anymore.

 

Ryzen still has RAM stability issues, and from a gaming perspective, it is FX all over again in my opinion; I'm "waiting for optimization" and waiting for the "Ryzen-optimized games," or I can just go Intel where I don't have to worry about any of these things.

 

I was willing to give AMD a chance, but ultimately I was disappointed. My i7-980X scores 820 multi and 101 single in Cinebench R15 and my R5-1600X scores 1350 multi and 165 single, and it feels like I actually downgraded in gaming performance except for two games. As such, I'm going Coffee Lake in the very near future and saying goodbye to AMD.

[epsilon84]

RE: IPC, Ryzen IPC is above Sandy Bridge, in applications its about equal to Haswell, in gaming its closer to Ivy Bridge from what I've seen. 

 

 

[RAM555789]

I would get an i5-8600k. It makes no sense getting an i7 7700k since the i5 8600k will outperform for a bit cheaper of a price, and you get 2 more cores but lose 2 threads. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8600K/3647vs3941

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i5-8600K 3.6GHz 6-Core Processor  (£243.79 @ Alza)
Motherboard: MSI - Z370-A PRO ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  (£86.86 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory  (£149.99 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £480.64
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-12-24 03:06 GMT+0000

[dcgreen2k]

22 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

Single core is just as important. A Ryzen 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads, but it still couldn't keep up with the 4 cores and 8 threads of a 7700k.

Tbh, I'm a hell of a lot happier with a 1600 than a 7700k. My 750Ti already severely bottlenecks the CPU at over 60fps, but 12 threads is awesome for gaming and streaming. One big plus for me is that the CPU + GPU only use 100 watts at full load.

[RAM555789]

1 minute ago, thegreengamers said:

Tbh, I'm a hell of a lot happier with a 1600 than a 7700k. My 750Ti already severely bottlenecks the CPU at over 60fps, but 12 threads is awesome for gaming and streaming. One big plus for me is that the CPU + GPU only use 100 watts at full load.

2

That's why I suggest the i5 8600k. Its better than the 7700k and the extra cores will help for streaming.

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, thegreengamers said:

Tbh, I'm a hell of a lot happier with a 1600 than a 7700k. My 750Ti already severely bottlenecks the CPU at over 60fps, but 12 threads is awesome for gaming and streaming. One big plus for me is that the CPU + GPU only use 100 watts at full load.

Streaming and gaming aren't the same thing.  A 1600 is better than a 7700k if you're streaming.  Not that there's a reason to get a 7700k anymore anyway.

[xg32]

1 hour ago, Emberstone said:

"No one cares about single core performance" is absolutely untrue. I own a Ryzen chip and am getting rid of it because of its low single-thread performance. If you're gaming, single-thread performance is most important unless you're one of the six people playing Ashes of the Benchmark.

Jesus i was under the impression that a 4.0 1600 would make the owner feel ok about gaming, i keep seeing the same 160~ single thread score, which is actually on par with sandy/ivy. This oversimplifies the problem but no doubt it's there. The 4.0 wall, bugs, and vega delay was what stopped me from getting ryzen and I emphasize with those who have to switch systems within a year.

 

I actually went for a phenom 2 (bsod at stock clocks, had to downclock) way back in the days upgrading from an opteron 165, been using intel ever since, ryzen was a nice attempt but ultimately falls slightly short. If i can game comfortably with an 8core cpu from amd without the motherboard/ram troubles, i'm sold.

[JoostinOnline]

1 hour ago, xg32 said:

The 4.0 wall, bugs, and vega delay was what stopped me from getting ryzen

What does Vega have to do with Ryzen? Pairing Ryzen with an Nvidia card doesn't make a difference. 

[xg32]

14 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

What does Vega have to do with Ryzen? Pairing Ryzen with an Nvidia card doesn't make a difference. 

i was gonna do the build all at once, was waiting for vega release to decide btwn it and the 1080 ti, by the time vega came out, coffee lake was releasing soon.

[Stefan Payne]

18 hours ago, Emberstone said:

"No one cares about single core performance" is absolutely untrue. I own a Ryzen chip and am getting rid of it because of its low single-thread performance. If you're gaming, single-thread performance is most important unless you're one of the six people playing Ashes of the Benchmark.

That's just not true.

And it seems to me that you are looking for excuses to buy the Intel, no matter the cost.

But hey, if everyone buys Intel, how can 'the others' have any money for R&D??

And in the End we are stuck with a 4 Core/8 Thread CPU for 10 Years. 
With minimal improvements for each generation...

Yeah, that's what everyone wants...

 

if you told someone 10 years ago that you can use the CPU in 10 Years, you would have been laughed at - that's not something someone could think of at the time.

Because 10 years ago the CPUs from 10 Years ago were Pentium II CPUs. But at the time there was some kind of competition.

But still, people seem to look for excuses to get the Intel, even if you have to pay 500€ for a mid range CPU.

 

FYI:
A 4 Core/8 Thread CPU for the high end Deskto Socket was sold for around 200€ at a time.

That the Intel you are planning to buy does NOT cost 500€ is thanks to Ryzen. But it seems that whatever some other companys do, they can do no wrong, others can do no right...

 

Quote

Another issue is optimization. Even though the R5-1600X at 4.0 GHz has around 60% better single-thread performance over my i7-980X, games don't feel like it.

Because you want to believe that?!

 

Quote

I'm not seeing 60% better fps in games that only run on a single thread, like Heroes of the Storm. Some games, like Destiny 2 and Guild Wars 2, actually run worse on the 1600X than my nearly 8-year-old X58 CPU.

That's not how it works and its more complicated.

But you don't want to believe/use AMD anyway, so why did you buy it in the first place?

 

Quote

On top of that, you have to cherry pick your RAM which is really annoying with the current pricing climate DDR4 lives in, and seven months later I still can't get my RAM to run at its full speed (3200 MHz).

You picked the wrong memory and did not do the necessary research before that, and?
Why isn't that YOUR fault?!

There are Threads in all bigger forums about the so called 'Samsung B-Die' Memory Chips.

 

Quote

Even better, the latest BIOS made my RAM unstable at 3066 MHz, where it was previously stable. I have to sit at 2933 now and can't downgrade the BIOS because it changed microcode. The board literally won't recognize old BIOS files anymore.

Its not like Intel Plattforms are without fail...

Especially if we talk about HEDT where you have to use certain slots for it to just boot...

 

But hey, that's Intel, so no Problem at all. Even if that is not something that's worthy for the time, nobody cares about that...

 

Quote

Ryzen still has RAM stability issues, and from a gaming perspective, it is FX all over again in my opinion; I'm "waiting for optimization" and waiting for the "Ryzen-optimized games," or I can just go Intel where I don't have to worry about any of these things.

A systemintegrator I trust said that X99 was way way worse than Ryzen ever was...

Then again, if you buy the wrong memory, that's on you.

 

Why are you trying to blame someone else for your mistake?

Why haven't you tried to RMA the RAM???

 

I don't understand...

Why flame some company for YOUR mistakes??

 

Quote

I was willing to give AMD a chance,

No, you weren't!

You were always hoping for AMD to fail and looking for a reason to pay for the Intel.

 

Quote

but ultimately I was disappointed.

Because you weren't neutral and always wanted the Intel...

 

Quote

My i7-980X scores 820 multi and 101 single in Cinebench R15 and my R5-1600X scores 1350 multi and 165 single, and it feels like I actually downgraded in gaming performance except for two games.

Yes, and?
Do you know if those games use the Intel compiler or other shit?
Have you tried disabling one CCX for those games??

 

Because they are old and won't be patched for Ryzen, it is possible that they don't know about that and use it wrong for whatever reason.

 

And have you tried reinstalling Windows?
Completely.

Some people say that Ryzen needs a fresh Windows and that that gave them a performance increase.

 

Quote

As such, I'm going Coffee Lake in the very near future and saying goodbye to AMD.

...because you wanted that in the first place.

 

PS: this is written on a shitty X79 system, MSI X79A-GD45 PLUS with an i7-3930K...

And that is rather annoying, especially if you have a second one and always have to look at the manual to know wich Memory slots you _HAVE TO_ use for the system to boot...

 

17 hours ago, xg32 said:

The 4.0 wall,

and what's about the higher efficiency?!
Why is nobody talking about the Efficiency of Ryzen??

Because it's better than intel?!

 

Quote

bugs,

Yeah, as if there are no bugs on Intel and that X99 was not pretty bad when it came out...

But with Intel, nobody talks about it, for whatever reason...

 

Oh and give me ONE reason for why Coffee lake does require an Z370 Board. Just ONE.

 

Quote

and vega delay

Has nothing to do with Ryzen...

Quote

was what stopped me from getting ryzen and I emphasize with those who have to switch systems within a year.

Because most of them never really wanted an AMD system in the first place and see them as inferior because of the wrong manufacturer.

 

Quote

I actually went for a phenom 2 (bsod at stock clocks, had to downclock) way back in the days upgrading from an opteron 165, been using intel ever since, ryzen was a nice attempt but ultimately falls slightly short. If i can game comfortably with an 8core cpu from amd without the motherboard/ram troubles, i'm sold.

Fails?!
What about Skylake-X and especially Kaby-X?! Aren't those really fails?

Why bash AMD at all?!
Especially since they don't really have much money, thanks to people who never see anything good about AMD products ever and who don't really want them in the first place...

 

Have you forgotten the S-ATA controller of the P67 Chipsets?
Have you forgotten that the Coffee Lake does not work on older, 1st Generation LGA1151 Boards for no reason??

[Emberstone]

3 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

That's just not true.

And it seems to me that you are looking for excuses to buy the Intel, no matter the cost.

But hey, if everyone buys Intel, how can 'the others' have any money for R&D??

And in the End we are stuck with a 4 Core/8 Thread CPU for 10 Years. 
With minimal improvements for each generation...

Yeah, that's what everyone wants...

 

if you told someone 10 years ago that you can use the CPU in 10 Years, you would have been laughed at - that's not something someone could think of at the time.

Because 10 years ago the CPUs from 10 Years ago were Pentium II CPUs. But at the time there was some kind of competition.

But still, people seem to look for excuses to get the Intel, even if you have to pay 500€ for a mid range CPU.

 

FYI:
A 4 Core/8 Thread CPU for the high end Deskto Socket was sold for around 200€ at a time.

That the Intel you are planning to buy does NOT cost 500€ is thanks to Ryzen. But it seems that whatever some other companys do, they can do no wrong, others can do no right...

 

Because you want to believe that?!

 

That's not how it works and its more complicated.

But you don't want to believe/use AMD anyway, so why did you buy it in the first place?

 

You picked the wrong memory and did not do the necessary research before that, and?
Why isn't that YOUR fault?!

There are Threads in all bigger forums about the so called 'Samsung B-Die' Memory Chips.

 

 

Its not like Intel Plattforms are without fail...

Especially if we talk about HEDT where you have to use certain slots for it to just boot...

 

But hey, that's Intel, so no Problem at all. Even if that is not something that's worthy for the time, nobody cares about that...

 

A systemintegrator I trust said that X99 was way way worse than Ryzen ever was...

Then again, if you buy the wrong memory, that's on you.

 

Why are you trying to blame someone else for your mistake?

Why haven't you tried to RMA the RAM???

 

I don't understand...

Why flame some company for YOUR mistakes??

 

No, you weren't!

You were always hoping for AMD to fail and looking for a reason to pay for the Intel.

 

Because you weren't neutral and always wanted the Intel...

 

Yes, and?
Do you know if those games use the Intel compiler or other shit?
Have you tried disabling one CCX for those games??

 

Because they are old and won't be patched for Ryzen, it is possible that they don't know about that and use it wrong for whatever reason.

 

And have you tried reinstalling Windows?
Completely.

Some people say that Ryzen needs a fresh Windows and that that gave them a performance increase.

 

...because you wanted that in the first place.

 

 

PS: this is written on a shitty X79 system, MSI X79A-GD45 PLUS with an i7-3930K...

And that is rather annoying, especially if you have a second one and always have to look at the manual to know wich Memory slots you _HAVE TO_ use for the system to boot...

... Wow.

 

I don’t understand why you think I wanted AMD to fail after I built a ~$1100 system using their platform. That makes zero sense.

 

You reference the X99 problems and whatnot regarding RAM. The big difference here is those got fixed. We’re finding out now that Ryzen’s memory controller just sucks and probably can’t be fixed for higher frequencies, and heavily depends on silicon lottery.

 

Yes, Windows was reinstalled.

 

Why would I bother disabling a CCX/SMT just to play old games better? That’s a huge hassle and I’d rather just play at lower frame rates than reboot when I want to do anything else. Is it wrong to expect my new, expensive hardware to just “work?”

 

I bought my memory when Ryzen launched. No one really knew how Ryzen liked its memory yet. Forgive me for not knowing like everyone else at that point. I chose to tough it out with BIOS updates because I didn’t want to buy another kit and make it worse. Even the RAM on my QVL only showed 2133 MHz except for a handful of kits that were very, very expensive at the time. So I chose a 3200 kit I could actually afford and chanced it. Sue me.

 

I don’t even know why I’m responding to you. It’s clear you’re not trying to base your arguments in any kind of reason other than “you’re only getting rid of it because you hate AMD,” nevermind the fact that it’s anything but cheap and throwaway.

 

Do you think I actually wanted and expected to spend more money on a CPU/mobo this year? I kept my last one for seven years. I was going to do the same here. Forgive me for being disappointed when my new rig performs worse than the old one, but I guess that’s because I’m an Intel shill.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Emberstone said:

"No one cares about single core performance" is absolutely untrue. I own a Ryzen chip and am getting rid of it because of its low single-thread performance. If you're gaming, single-thread performance is most important unless you're one of the six people playing Ashes of the Benchmark.

 

Another issue is optimization. Even though the R5-1600X at 4.0 GHz has around 60% better single-thread performance over my i7-980X, games don't feel like it. I'm not seeing 60% better fps in games that only run on a single thread, like Heroes of the Storm. Some games, like Destiny 2 and Guild Wars 2, actually run worse on the 1600X than my nearly 8-year-old X58 CPU.

 

On top of that, you have to cherry pick your RAM which is really annoying with the current pricing climate DDR4 lives in, and seven months later I still can't get my RAM to run at its full speed (3200 MHz). Even better, the latest BIOS made my RAM unstable at 3066 MHz, where it was previously stable. I have to sit at 2933 now and can't downgrade the BIOS because it changed microcode. The board literally won't recognize old BIOS files anymore.

 

Ryzen still has RAM stability issues, and from a gaming perspective, it is FX all over again in my opinion; I'm "waiting for optimization" and waiting for the "Ryzen-optimized games," or I can just go Intel where I don't have to worry about any of these things.

 

I was willing to give AMD a chance, but ultimately I was disappointed. My i7-980X scores 820 multi and 101 single in Cinebench R15 and my R5-1600X scores 1350 multi and 165 single, and it feels like I actually downgraded in gaming performance except for two games. As such, I'm going Coffee Lake in the very near future and saying goodbye to AMD.

Something is clearly wrong with your setup

 

Ryzen will offer better gaming performance compared to a 980X and more importantly Ryzen will offer more performance in games made after 2016. If something is feeling like crap most likely ram is unstable(meaning it would fail a HCI test) or the CPU OC is unstable(fail Prime 95 test). 

 

Your one experience does not correlate to many other people who used their Ryzen builds for months. 

 

Complete and utter BS statement is "Bulldozer all over again" do you understand how terrible bulldozer really was???

 

Bulldozer was worse then the Phenom II in IPC in most cases. At this point i want to test your build personally and the software you use. 

 

980X should NOT be performing better at all compared to Ryzen please make a video showing proof of this for others to see. Only game that i play that performs noticeably worse on Ryzen compared to my 4790K is Fallout 4 which is a game with terrible CPU optimization and even at 4.7Ghz my 4790K saw GPU(1080) usage drop below 80%. 

 

11 hours ago, Emberstone said:

... Wow.

 

I don’t understand why you think I wanted AMD to fail after I built a ~$1100 system using their platform. That makes zero sense.

 

You reference the X99 problems and whatnot regarding RAM. The big difference here is those got fixed. We’re finding out now that Ryzen’s memory controller just sucks and probably can’t be fixed for higher frequencies, and heavily depends on silicon lottery.

 

Yes, Windows was reinstalled.

 

Why would I bother disabling a CCX/SMT just to play old games better? That’s a huge hassle and I’d rather just play at lower frame rates than reboot when I want to do anything else. Is it wrong to expect my new, expensive hardware to just “work?”

 

I bought my memory when Ryzen launched. No one really knew how Ryzen liked its memory yet. Forgive me for not knowing like everyone else at that point. I chose to tough it out with BIOS updates because I didn’t want to buy another kit and make it worse. Even the RAM on my QVL only showed 2133 MHz except for a handful of kits that were very, very expensive at the time. So I chose a 3200 kit I could actually afford and chanced it. Sue me.

 

I don’t even know why I’m responding to you. It’s clear you’re not trying to base your arguments in any kind of reason other than “you’re only getting rid of it because you hate AMD,” nevermind the fact that it’s anything but cheap and throwaway.

 

Do you think I actually wanted and expected to spend more money on a CPU/mobo this year? I kept my last one for seven years. I was going to do the same here. Forgive me for being disappointed when my new rig performs worse than the old one, but I guess that’s because I’m an Intel shill.

Again sorry have no idea why its performing like that when a Haswell based I7 is actually performing worse then Ryzen in my case. 

 

Something is clearly wrong with your machine have no idea what but something is terribly wrong. 

 

I mean you are reporting worse then sandy bridge performance even with 2 more cores and 4 more threads. A 1600 in digital foundry videos beats a I5 7600K in gaming and of course beats it an basically anything else. I really have no idea why you are having these issues? 

 

[JoostinOnline]

1 hour ago, Emberstone said:

*snip*

Don't feed the troll.  It will eventually die from lack of attention.

[Emberstone]

38 minutes ago, jdwii said:

Again sorry have no idea why its performing like that when a Haswell based I7 is actually performing worse then Ryzen in my case. 

 

Something is clearly wrong with your machine have no idea what but something is terribly wrong. 

 

I mean you are reporting worse then sandy bridge performance even with 2 more cores and 4 more threads. A 1600 in digital foundry videos beats a I5 7600K in gaming and of course beats it an basically anything else. I really have no idea why you are having these issues? 

 

It's not the OC or the RAM because, at stock with the RAM at 2400 MHz (the supported speed for dual-rank memory on Ryzen), the performance is still less than what I have now and benchmark scores show where they should be: 1230 multi and 160 single in Cinebench. Prime95 doesn't crash after several hours, but I'll admit I haven't run Memtest86.

 

It's probably more to do with the games I play, which right now are mainly Heroes of the Storm and Guild Wars 2. I'll give some examples.

 

Heroes saw some benefit going to Ryzen, but it wasn't enough to justify a brand new platform. Guild Wars 2 sees heavier dips during world events on Ryzen than my 980X did, and I've had to crank settings down in order to not sit at 15 fps during Tequatl or Auric Basin, but has a higher average out in the world. Destiny 2 (while not relevant in a gaming sense because it's Destiny 2, the point still stands) actually performs flat-out better on the 980X once I overclock it to 4.0 GHz. World of Warcraft's framerate is higher on average with Ryzen, but I see a lot more dips below 60 fps in raids than I used to which makes the experience pretty jarring and inconsistent like Guild Wars 2's is.

 

The only games I can think of that absolutely run justifiably better on my Ryzen setup are Doom 2016 and Overwatch, which both have exceptional multithreading support. MindBlankTech showed that Ryzen would actually outperform a 7700K in Overwatch at higher memory frequencies. On Ultra the lowest average I've gotten is like ~180 in Overwatch and I usually average around 200 in ordinary games, so the performance there is fantastic.

 

I'm just disappointed that the experience I've had with Overwatch and Doom isn't indicative of the whole picture that's been painted for me.

[JoostinOnline]

I feel sorry for @Editie right now.  He's had his topic derailed by a troll and its victims.