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

[DarkBlade2117]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

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

So they did market it as...

No... It was never originally marketed as the perfect gaming CPU.

Also... You have to see it this way. There is NO way in hell Intel is going to release the next generation as the typical 2c/4t i3, 4c/4t i5 and 4c/8t i7. They could... but it would be stupid. 

A BIG sign of this is the Pentium G4560. They basically killed the i3 lineup with that. So the i3 lineup has to be a 4c/4t next gen and the i5 lineup will be killed... so they have to make the i5 lineup a 4c/8t which will kill the i7 lineup and that has to be at minimum a 6c/12t. Because a 6c/6t would technically have lower single threaded performance of a 4c/8t CPU.

[Dylanc1500]

This is why I wish school computer classes still taught the fundamentals of how processors complete different instructions and what the different clocks cycles within a system do. There would be a lot less arguing and confusion on IPC performance as well, multi threaded work loads and single threaded work loads.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, DarkBlade2117 said:

No... It was never originally marketed as the perfect gaming CPU.

??

5 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Originally marketed it as.

Just now, DarkBlade2117 said:

A BIG sign of this is the Pentium G4560. They basically killed the i3 lineup with that. So the i3 lineup has to be a 4c/4t next gen and the i5 lineup will be killed... so they have to make the i5 lineup a 4c/8t which will kill the i7 lineup and that has to be at minimum a 6c/12t. Because a 6c/6t would technically have lower single threaded performance of a 4c/8t CPU.

This would make sense...

 

[AnonymousGuy]

14 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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.

Reducing core count only reduces thermal load on the cooling, which doesn't seem to be the limiting factor at all since the 4Ghz ceiling is reached on even mediocre cooling solutions.

[Memories4K]

23 minutes ago, 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.

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.

I'm not arguing that at all, in fact i don't care about how good a deal Ryzen is in multi-tasking for the price because i already knew that hahaha; this entire "i5 in gaming" has only been about, look at that, gaming.
No matter how good Ryzen is in other tasks it will NEVER subtract from it's performance in gaming.
And before you type in your keyboard "Well other people do more than gaming" I don't care, i don't care how it was marketed, what else Ryzen can do besides gaming, or how good it is in Cinebench; that's never been my argument and that's not been why it's been compared to the i5.

I do hope the 1700 is better with a little time but right now? It's not, at all.
I don't care about a lack of results and hope for the future; i'm criticizing Ryzen in gaming, today.

No, yeah, the 1700 is a good deal compared to the 6900k and it should b doing better, but it's not.

[PlayStation 2]

long fucking sigh

The R7 series was touted as a great rendering CPU that could easily hold its own in gaming. It does that sensibly well, IMO.

Compared to the 5960X (hell, even the 6900K, which is basically an OC'd 5960X), which it should be compared to, the R7 1700 holds its own really well while being a full 67% cheaper. That's insane when you think about it. The guys complaining about this are really the ones who would rather own an i7-7700K to begin with because they only game.

[Misanthrope]

29 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Reducing core count only reduces thermal load on the cooling, which doesn't seem to be the limiting factor at all since the 4Ghz ceiling is reached on even mediocre cooling solutions.

Then why are the announced 6 core parts clocked noticeably higher from factory? Probably just better chances at good bins since you're dealing with less cores? Because that would make sense but well, the end result in either case it's higher clocks and a tad of an IPC advantage is it not?

[AnonymousGuy]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Then why are the announced 6 core parts clocked noticeably higher from factory? Probably just better chances at good bins since you're dealing with less cores? Because that would make sense but well, the end result in either case it's higher clocks and a tad of an IPC advantage is it not?

Link me to the 6 core clock specs?  If it's still < 4.1Ghz on turbo then they're probably just clocking them closer to the limit to mask the single core performance not being great.

 

I doubt they're spinning different silicon for 8 core 6 core and 4 core.  All the litho and running multiple product lines would increase their costs.  If they were doing more die per wafer with a 6 core design, then in theory they could have more die available to bin with, but it seems even the top chips can't do more than 4.1Ghz with 3.9 on all cores being a more realistic average.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

No... It was never originally marketed as the perfect gaming CPU.

Why did it matter if it was originally or not? It was recently marketed as the "dream gaming" cpu.

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

But what will happen when Nvidia's Volta launches? The GTX 2080 Ti (or however they decide to call it) will be 2x more powerful than the GTX 1080, so Ryzen will struggle to keep up at 1440p, just like it struggles right now at 1080p...

By then they'll have updated the Ryzen line I'm sure. You've several times that you don't have a crystal ball to see into the future when people have made assumptions about performance, and yet here you are doing the same thing.

1 hour ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Well, you don't buy a CPU only to replace it after 2 years because it doesn't perform well in games anymore...

I replace my PC every 3 years. So, it's really not far off of what I do, and what quite a few of my friends do.

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

I'm personally hoping they get these "Windows bugs" sorted out (if that's even real) for the 8-cores because I would like one. As it sits right now though the i7 seems like a better value for me.

I don't believe (at least as far as gaming goes) that the Windows issue will see any large increase in frame rates, if Jayztwocents video showed anything.

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

-snip-

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.

I don't really get your comparison here. It'd make sense if the prices were considerably different, but you can get a(n albeit lower tier) Ryzen CPU for less than a 7700k. Both are practical for every day use. One is better at serious work, for sure, but  I wouldn't say that's every day use for the average user in the slightest.

59 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

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/

Thanks for that, much more informing than a website in another language.

It'll be interesting to see if it performs close to what these results show.

8 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

-snip-
I do hope the 1700 is better with a little time but right now? It's not, at all.
I don't care about a lack of results and hope for the future; i'm criticizing Ryzen in gaming, today.

No, yeah, the 1700 is a good deal compared to the 6900k and it should b doing better, but it's not.

I find it odd that so many people find the maybe 10ish frames less Ryzen gets to be such a huge issue. When the lower tier chips are released, even if they are the same percentage behind their competition tier, they destroy it when it comes to price (likely, seeing as the leaked pricing for the R7 line was pretty much spot on).

Price to performance is not something to be ignored.

[PCGuy_5960]

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

By then they'll have updated the Ryzen line I'm sure. You've several times that you don't have a crystal ball to see into the future when people have made assumptions about performance, and yet here you are doing the same thing.

Look at 1060(which performs like a 980) vs 1080 Ti benchmarks... This is what Nvidia does, the 2080 Ti will be at least 50% faster than the 1080.....

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

I replace my PC every 3 years. So, it's really not far off of what I do, and what quite a few of my friends do.

You are the exception rather than the rule

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

Price to performance is not something to be ignored.

Exactly. With the i7, you are getting amazing performance. With Ryzen you are getting decent performance for an amazing price!

[Phate.exe]

9 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I know math probably hurts your brain, but a 5Ghz 7700K (which is an average overclock) that's 25% better IPC means an 1800X would have to clock to 6.25Ghz to compete single thread.  Since 4Ghz is where it tops out, 6.25/4 = 56% better IPC at overclock.

You keep saying IPC, when I think you mean single-core performance.  Let's go through what that acronym means:  Instructions Per Clock.  Words mean things.  IPC is independent of clock speed, since it is by definition the number of things (instructions) the CPU can accomplish every clock cycle.

 

So yes, a 7700k has better IPC and clocks higher, which makes it have better single-threaded performance.  It does more things each clock cycle, and it clocks 25% faster, so it does more things.

[DarkBlade2117]

20 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Look at 1060(which performs like a 980) vs 1080 Ti benchmarks... This is what Nvidia does, the 2080 Ti will be at least 50% faster than the 1080.....

You are the exception rather than the rule

That is if history repeats itself. Also you don't know that it'll be called a 2080 Ti.. and if it is it won't be released the same day the 2080 is. Or month, or quarter. They'll release the stupid $1,000-$1,200 Titan and milk that for 6-8 months, tease the 1080Ti for a month and then release it. 

Also.. Vega. Is not something to ignore. AMD would be incredibly stupid to release an architecture a year after Pascal for it to only be "on-par" with it. The 590 will likely have to be 1080Ti performance As the next XX70 card will be near it. The 580 will have to be 1080 performance as the XX60 card will likely be near it. As for the 590x or whatever succeeds the Fury lineup.. who knows. Your assumptions make sense with what history has done but you cannot just assume they are going to repeat it.

[dizmo]

26 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Look at 1060(which performs like a 980) vs 1080 Ti benchmarks... This is what Nvidia does, the 2080 Ti will be at least 50% faster than the 1080.....

You are the exception rather than the rule

That's irrelevant to what you were trying to say about bottlenecks Ryzen would give.

24 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Exactly. With the i7, you are getting amazing performance. With Ryzen you are getting decent performance for an amazing price!

Depends what you're doing.

[Memories4K]

59 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I find it odd that so many people find the maybe 10ish frames less Ryzen gets to be such a huge issue. When the lower tier chips are released, even if they are the same percentage behind their competition tier, they destroy it when it comes to price (likely, seeing as the leaked pricing for the R7 line was pretty much spot on).

Price to performance is not something to be ignored.

No i don't find it to be a huge issue at all.
Ryzen's great, even if in gaming it's not performing as great as a 7700k (competition at same price point as lowest Ryzen offering) or more comparable 6900k (competition at same core-count and frequency).
I'm just not willing to ignore, and can fully accept, the fact that Ryzen DOES perform quite a bit below those chips in the large majority of benchmarks.
The price to performance of Ryzen is great; without a doubt.

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

That's irrelevant to what you were trying to say about bottlenecks Ryzen would give.

If Ryzen bottlenecks a 1080, would it not bottleneck a 2080 Ti?

[2FA]

50 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

And yet, you knew what I meant anyways so your entire point is moot.  Check and mate.

 

I feel like I should type "your bad" just to trigger you for your vs. you're.

If you're going to troll, at least be a good one.

[Okjoek]

(After watching Jay's video)

Oh no my workstation CPU can only pull 200 FPS in DOOM. Must be bad for gaming!

ps. First world problems.

[79wjd]

26 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

(After watching Jay's video)

Oh no my workstation CPU can only pull 200 FPS in DOOM. Must be bad for gaming!

ps. First world problems.

Wasn't his entire point that it's not bad for gaming? It's just not the best there is for gaming. 

[Phate.exe]

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Wasn't his entire point that it's not bad for gaming? It's just not the best there is for gaming. 

His point was that the R7 is better at gaming than the 7700k is at being a workstation processor.

[WMGroomAK]

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Wasn't his entire point that it's not bad for gaming? It's just not the best there is for gaming. 

Fairly much... I think it was closer to a subjective look of in his opinion while playing games it doesn't provide a noticeably worse gaming experience.

[TechGod]

5 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

And by really good you mean 50% worse than Intel when the poor overclocking and inferior IPC are taken into account?

50 percent less? Jesus. What are you smoking and is it even legal?

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, TechGod said:

50 percent less? Jesus. What are you smoking and is it even legal?

50 is the new 25.

[rattacko123]

If you are happy with 60fps, then Ryzen is good enough, I doubt that games in the future would be that much more demanding on single threads, games are demanding enough on the CPU as they are today, and with Vulkan/DX12 more of the work will likely be better loaded on the GPU. Unless, of course, you are playing ashes of the singularity, which in that case you need an overclocked 6900k to get 60fps  

6 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Also.. Vega. Is not something to ignore. AMD would be incredibly stupid to release an architecture a year after Pascal for it to only be "on-par" with it. The 590 will likely have to be 1080Ti performance 

It will be 1080 ti performance... In like 2 years after release  
I think that Navi will be AMDs next hit architecture. If you look at AMD's perf/watt roadmaps, Vega doesn't look all that impressive, but Navi definitely looks promising. I think Vega will only be good in memory/tessellation heavy scenarios based on what AMD has shown us.

6 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

The 590

You mean RX Vega

[Okjoek]

3 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Wasn't his entire point that it's not bad for gaming? It's just not the best there is for gaming. 

Oh yeah, I'm sorry that's the impression I got of the people Jay was referring to.