4x 980Ti vs 2x 1080Ti

[othertomperson]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

First off Ryzen has changed a lot just in the short time since launch, the gaming performance is RAM related, use the right RAM and Ryzen games just fine.

 

Second... My 4790k runs at 4.7Ghz. That's 300mhz off of an overclocked 7700k. 300mhz is not substantial. 

Depends on your definition of "just fine". It's playable, sure, but based on its IPC and thread count Ryzen needs to be identical to the 6900K and it isn't. Likewise, the 1600X needs to wipe the floor with i5s on its specs, not just match them. 

 

Sorry if I doubt the statistical significance of your sample of 1.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, othertomperson said:

Depends on your definition of "just fine". It's playable, sure, but based on its IPC and thread count Ryzen needs to be identical to the 6900K and it isn't.

 

Sorry if I doubt the statistical significance of your sample of 1.

Brah...

 

 

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Brah...

 

 

I'm considering to replace my 6800K with RAMPAGE V EXTREME and get Ryzen 1800X or even 1700 'cause overclocked they're the same. Mainly because it doesn't matter at all at 4K and I already own 16GB of 3200Mhz RAM so I should be fine.

[othertomperson]

7 minutes ago, App4that said:

Brah...

 

 

I mean you've just highlighted my point. Ridiculously fast RAM is not enough to make the $500 Ryzen equal the $350 Intel. It's a shame that the 6900K isn't included. I know why people don't bother because of the huge price difference, but from a spec and architectural viewpoint it's an interesting comparison. It also doesn't take into account that people are still finding it very difficult to be able to use RAM at these speeds with Ryzen, and that the work done to ensure compatibility his much higher.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the 1700 but I wouldn't buy it or recommend it until it at least keeps up with the 7700k.

 

If you look at graphs that include older CPUs the 1800X and the 4790k are roughly equivalent, which brings us back to Haswell vs Kaby Lake

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

I'm considering to replace my 6800K with RAMPAGE V EXTREME and get Ryzen 1800X or even 1700 'cause overclocked they're the same. Mainly because it doesn't matter at all at 4K and I already own 16GB of 3200Mhz RAM so I should be fine.

I wouldn't replace your 6800k with even a 1700, total side grade. If you're purely production, maybe. 

[App4that]

Just now, othertomperson said:

I mean you've just highlighted my point. Ridiculously fast RAM is not enough to make the $500 Ryzen equal the $350 Intel. It's a shame that the 6900K isn't included. I know why people don't bother because of the huge price difference, but from a spec and architectural viewpoint it's an interesting comparison. It also doesn't take into account that people are still finding it very difficult to be able to use RAM at these speeds with Ryzen, and that the work done to ensure compatibility his much higher.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the 1700 but I wouldn't buy it or recommend it until it at least keeps up with the 7700k.

 

If you look at graphs that include older CPUs that 1800X and the 4790k are roughly equivalent.

You can't seriously look at the 1800x, that CPU like the 1600x is a fanboy trap. Good on AMD for doing it though, I would too.

 

The 1700 and 1600 are the CPUs you look at, and both remove any reason to buy a Intel i5 or i7. If the 7700k didn't have thermal issues from shit manufacturing, maybe. For someone who ONLY games. But no one just games, and the 7700k is garbage. 

[Frankenburger]

16 minutes ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

Going SLI now is kinda pointless, unless you have the money and you like to brag that you have 1080 TI SLI.

That depends on one's subjective needs and wants.

 

Personally, I want a clean, alias free image. It's not always easy to do that at 1440p, and even at 4k aliasing can show through depending on the game. Going SLI with the 1080Ti lets me have the best of both worlds - high frames, great AA.

 

Do my subjective needs apply to everyone? No. That's what makes the small minority "enthusiasts". Does that mean it's pointless? No. A 1080Ti SLI system serve a purpose, regardless if that purpose is niche.

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, Frankenburger said:

That depends on one's subjective needs and wants.

 

Personally, I want a clean, alias free image. It's not always easy to do that at 1440p, and even at 4k aliasing can show through depending on the game. Going SLI with the 1080Ti lets me have the best of both worlds - high frames, great AA.

 

Do my subjective needs apply to everyone? No. That's what makes the small minority "enthusiasts". Does that mean it's pointless? No. 1080Ti's serve a purpose, regardless if that purpose is niche.

You're taking my points out of context, you isolated one sentence and ignored the rest.

[Droidbot]

2 hours ago, othertomperson said:

I'd love to hear your suggestion on a single GPU eqivalent to two 1080 Tis... Go on, do tell me what product that exists right now that I can get -- albeit for £1500 ish -- that will be equivalent.

Nothing. But at an average resolution now like 1440p you can push serious pixels with one 1080Ti. And then when the 11xx series comes out, 1080Tis will drop in price and then you can pick up one for SLI if you feel like some more power. 

 

 

[TheNaitsyrk]

Just now, Droidbot said:

Nothing. But at an average resolution now like 1440p you can push serious pixels with one 1080Ti. And then when the 11xx series comes out, 1080Tis will drop in price and then you can pick up one for SLI if you feel like some more power. 

 

 

Very valid point.

 

You can also reduce details at 4K slightly to get that 60FPS also if it doesn't bother you (with a single 1080 ti that's not a FE model).

[App4that]

1 minute ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

You're taking my points out of context, you isolated one sentence and ignored the rest.

No, they're offering another view. each person has their own needs, why there isn't one best card, or why you can't say the 480 or 1060 is better. 

[othertomperson]

10 minutes ago, App4that said:

You can't seriously look at the 1800x, that CPU like the 1600x is a fanboy trap. Good on AMD for doing it though, I would too.

 

The 1700 and 1600 are the CPUs you look at, and both remove any reason to buy a Intel i5 or i7. If the 7700k didn't have thermal issues from shit manufacturing, maybe. For someone who ONLY games. But no one just games, and the 7700k is garbage. 

The 1600 makes i5s look unpalatable, not i7s. The "garbage" 7700k is the single best processor for most people out right now. It's crap at rendering and stuff like that compared to Ryzen, but that's about it.

 

The issue is when you say "someone who only games" is that you're missing the point. The 7700k has enough cores and hyperthreading that it's decent for multitasking too. In fact the number of parallel applications is vastly outstripped by the number of serial applications. It's more accurate to say that a slower 6 or 8 core is a more niche product than a fast quad core -- which exactly explains why Intel's more expensive products are slower multi core and their mainstream products are the fastest in the most common workloads.

 

There's a reason why when I was looking at cheap CPUs for my dad's PC I was looking at fast dual cores rather than slower quad cores. To him the "snappiness" in running one or two applications was worth more than the ability to run lots and lots simultaneously without impacting performance.

 

7 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

Nothing. But at an average resolution now like 1440p you can push serious pixels with one 1080Ti. And then when the 11xx series comes out, 1080Tis will drop in price and then you can pick up one for SLI if you feel like some more power. 

 

 

What on earth makes you think anyone is getting 1080 Ti SLI for 1440p 60hz? Anyone even looking at spending $1400 on a GPU is clearly not in the market you're assuming. Someone whose workload exceeds the capabilities of any single GPU on the planet NEEDS this solution, and no amount of "nah don't" is going to change that.

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

No, they're offering another view. each person has their own needs, why there isn't one best card, or why you can't say the 480 or 1060 is better. 

I suppose, if they like spending £1500 for DEFINITELY a lot less than double the performance with issues (not everywhere but half of the games) then yeah sure. Each to their own.

[App4that]

Just now, othertomperson said:

The 1600 makes i5s look unpalatable, not i7s. The "garbage" 7700k is the single best processor for most people out right now. It's crap at rendering and stuff like that compared to Ryzen, but that's about it.

 

The issue is when you say "someone who only games" is that you're missing the point. The 7700k has enough cores and hyperthreading that it's decent for multitasking too. In fact the number of parallel applications is vastly outstripped by the number of serial applications. It's more accurate to say that a slower 6 or 8 core is a more niche product than a fast quad core -- which exactly explains why Intel's more expensive products are slower multi core and their mainstream products are the fastest in the most common workloads.

Only the 7700k is objectivly garbage. You drop 20c on average at full load by delidding the silly thing and fixing Intels shit manufacturing. That makes it, garbage.

 

The 5-10fps gained by having the 7700k is completely lost when any load is placed on the GPU. Sure you test with the load on the CPU to find the difference, but that difference isn't enough to make the 7700k worth the money. For gamers you get the 1600, mixed gamer production get the 1700. easy

[Frankenburger]

1 minute ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

You're taking my points out of context, you isolated one sentence and ignored the rest.

Yes and no. I was merely making the point that the perspective of 1080Ti's being overkill or useless is an opinion, not an objective fact.

 

One of your major points that's interesting to debate is the scaling of 2 1080Ti's in SLI. The TechOfTomorrow video review is kind of misleading. Yes, the 1080Ti's don't scale that well with the settings that he used, but that doesn't mean you can't get better value out of them.

 

It's a pretty well known fact, especially within SLI users, that SLI scaling gets progressively better the more AA you throw at it, and the higher your resolution, which is something TechOfTomorrow didn't do. He stopped at 4k when the strengths of 2x GTX 1080Ti really start to show when you go beyond 4k.

 

If the user has no interest in using MSAA, much less SSAA or DSR, then 2x 1080Ti won't serve them well. But again, that's what quantifies the 1080Ti, and SLI for that matter, as an enthusiast class platform. Enthusiasts push the envelope to get the absolute most out of their investment. The average consumer just wants a plug and play experience. SLI 1080Ti caters to a much different audience than non SLI systems.

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, Frankenburger said:

Yes and no. I was merely making the point that the perspective of 1080Ti's being overkill or useless is an opinion, not an objective fact.

 

One of your major points that's interesting to debate is the scaling of 2 1080Ti's in SLI. The TechOfTomorrow video review is kind of misleading. Yes, the 1080Ti's don't scale that well with the settings that he used, but that doesn't mean you can't get better value out of them.

 

It's a pretty well known fact, especially within SLI users, that SLI scaling gets progressively better the more AA you throw at it, and the higher your resolution, which is something TechOfTomorrow didn't do. He stopped at 4k when the strengths of 2x GTX 1080Ti really start to show when you go beyond 4k.

 

If the user has no interest in using MSAA, much less SSAA or DSR, then 2x 1080Ti won't serve them well. But again, that's what quantifies the 1080Ti, and SLI for that matter, as an enthusiast class platform. Enthusiasts push the envelope to get the absolute most out of their investment. The average consumer just wants a plug and play experience. SLI 1080Ti caters to a much different audience than non SLI systems.

Well, I'd personally rather just lower the details for now to get that 60 FPS at 4K since it looks stunning anyway, and I thought 5K isn't supported on Windows? Linus made a video on it back then.

[Droidbot]

2 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

What on earth makes you think anyone is getting 1080 Ti SLI for 1440p 60hz? Anyone even looking at spending $1400 on a GPU is clearly not in the market you're assuming. Someone whose workload exceeds the capabilities of any single GPU on the planet NEEDS this solution, and no amount of "nah don't" is going to change that.

I never said 60hz, just 1440p. 4K is capable on a 1080Ti with some settings turned down. That's a different scenario entirely, and yes, that's where the second card is worth it. If you had mentioned that in the first place, I would have said to just get the second card.  

[Frankenburger]

4 minutes ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

Well, I'd personally rather just lower the details for now to get that 60 FPS at 4K since it looks stunning anyway, and I thought 5K isn't supported on Windows? Linus made a video on it back then.

The highest per-display resolution I can confirm works within the Windows environment is 8k, thanks to DSR and my 4k display. However, games can reach a display resolution much, MUCH higher than that. Load up GeDoSaTo, point it to any source engine game, enable 15360x8640, and it will be recognized as a valid resolution.

[othertomperson]

8 minutes ago, App4that said:

Only the 7700k is objectivly garbage. You drop 20c on average at full load by delidding the silly thing and fixing Intels shit manufacturing. That makes it, garbage.

 

The 5-10fps gained by having the 7700k is completely lost when any load is placed on the GPU. Sure you test with the load on the CPU to find the difference, but that difference isn't enough to make the 7700k worth the money. For gamers you get the 1600, mixed gamer production get the 1700. easy

...you're saying those gaming benchmarks are done without the GPU being used... or are you claiming that the 7700k is only better when you don't bottleneck it with a GPU? Because the latter is true of anything.

 

That "garbage" is still outstripping anything with an AMD badge on it. It's around the same price as the 1700 and is consistently better in games, and you are just blithely calling it "garbage". Its TIM might make you struggle to hit 5GHz. Going Ryzen might make you struggle to hit 4.

 

2 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

I never said 60hz, just 1440p. 4K is capable on a 1080Ti with some settings turned down. That's a different scenario entirely, and yes, that's where the second card is worth it. If you had mentioned that in the first place, I would have said to just get the second card.  

No you wouldn't. I shouldn't have had to point out the fact that 1) there is no meaningful better single GPU solution as you suggest which made your first post irrelevant, and 2) maybe you shouldn't just assume that someone looking at a £1400 GPU doesn't have a particularly heavy workload in mind.

[jjohnthedon1]

2 hours ago, N1ghtshade said:

Yes. 7700k/Kaby lake is better than Haswell for gaming

 

Do you even remember why you tried arguing? Cause you were dead wrong from the start

I didn't say it wasn't better( it's only a little bit better if we're being honest and it's that little. I one should upgrade from a 4790k to a 7700k wast of money)

 

my point was that if a 4790k was bottlenecking  that bad so would a 7700k

ita not like its 40 percent better at gaming or anything rediculas 

 

The original post to this argument was that @App4thatwas running haswell and someone said it was somehow a shit cpu crippling his gpu and gaming performance and somehow a 7700k was the answer because it was some kind of insanely powerful chip lol 

[App4that]

6 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

...you're saying those gaming benchmarks are done without the GPU being used... or are you claiming that the 7700k is only better when you don't bottleneck it with a GPU? Because the latter is true of anything.

 

That "garbage" is still outstripping anything with an AMD badge on it. It's around the same price as the 1700 and is consistently better in games, and you are just blithely calling it "garbage". Its TIM might make you struggle to hit 5GHz. Going Ryzen might make you struggle to hit 4.

 

No you wouldn't. I shouldn't have had to point out the fact that 1) there is no meaningful better single GPU solution as you suggest which made your first post irrelevant, and 2) maybe you shouldn't just assume that someone looking at a £1400 GPU doesn't have a particularly heavy workload in mind.

A 7700k isn't "outstripping" shit LOL All that's been proven is if you place the load on the CPU, the 7700k offers a few more fps. Who games with the load on the CPU? 

 

This is of course durring the launch of Ryzen, which HAS been getting updates that have increased the performance in games. Games made before Ryzen even exsisted. Now that Ryzen is in the wild, games will be made with it in m ind, and developers will optimize for Ryzen in the games releasing now. 

 

So hat's off to anyone who bought a 7700k, poor lads. 

[Droidbot]

16 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

I didn't say it wasn't better( it's only a little bit better if we're being honest and it's that little. I one should upgrade from a 4790k to a 7700k wast of money)

 

my point was that if a 4790k was bottlenecking  that bad so would a 7700k

ita not like its 40 percent better at gaming or anything rediculas 

 

The original post to this argument was that @App4thatwas running haswell and someone said it was somehow a shit cpu crippling his gpu and gaming performance and somehow a 7700k was the answer because it was some kind of insanely powerful chip lol 

the 4790k is still like 10% behind the 7700k in like a worst case scenario (7700k with 3600Mhz CL14) 

In reality it's like 5-7% 

 

look up 'digitalfoundry 7700k vs 4790k' and skip to 8min in, they run benches on all the recent intel procs with them at 4.5Ghz (albeit it's slightly sky/kaby biased as they didnt have 2400Mhz DDR4 on hand)

[jjohnthedon1]

50 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Ryzen's only good if you have something that takes advantage of more cores and hyperthreading, and even games which do tend to be better in Intel at the moment. There are still games that do better on the 6900K than the 7700K, but don't do better on Ryzen which implies more than just a thread/speed issue.

 

It's also inaccurate to only talk about "clock for clock". Skylake offered a reasonable improvement in IPC over Broadwell/Haswell, but Kaby Lake's improvements in the process itself allowed clock speeds to increase dramatically. You'd need to underclock Kaby Lake substantially to make a clock for clock comparison, which would be taking away a large part of what makes Kaby Lake in real terms so much better.

 

Remember when AMD were comparing IPC with the 6900K to show that they were level with Broadwell, but to do it they had to massively underclock the 6900K? Well now we know why. IPC is indeed there, but clock speeds are not.

 

If AMD (or more accurately, Global Foundries) could replicate Intel's improvements for Kaby Lake in the next generation of Ryzen then overnight Ryzen would be much better competitor to Skylake i7s without any change in IPC at all.

I'm with app on that one 

mid rather go ryzen than on intel 

there platforms and gpus age so much better

 

had my 4790k 16 months board died could only buy from one place online to replace it with a similar specked board 

 

where as I could still buy a am3+ board for bulldozer from a shop lol 

 

once amd iron out the creases in ryzen it's gona be a fucking beast to contest with 

 

I hope there next cpus are just a ryzen refresh that clock higher 

[jjohnthedon1]

7 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

the 4790k is still like 10% behind the 7700k in like a worst case scenario (7700k with 3600Mhz CL14) 

In reality it's like 5-7% 

 

look up 'digitalfoundry 7700k vs 4790k' and skip to 8min in, they run benches on all the recent intel procs with them at 4.5Ghz

No I understand that it's a tiny bit better 

but a 7700k isn't gona swoop in and save the day if a heavily oced 4790k isn't up to the task in gaming 

[jjohnthedon1]

10 minutes ago, App4that said:

A 7700k isn't "outstripping" shit LOL All that's been proven is if you place the load on the CPU, the 7700k offers a few more fps. Who games with the load on the CPU? 

 

This is of course durring the launch of Ryzen, which HAS been getting updates that have increased the performance in games. Games made before Ryzen even exsisted. Now that Ryzen is in the wild, games will be made with it in m ind, and developers will optimize for Ryzen in the games releasing now. 

 

So hat's off to anyone who bought a 7700k, poor lads. 

When I thought my chip was dead a few days ago I didn't even price up a 7700k system 

I was pricing a 1700 and a x350 board with sli and 16gb ddr4 ram for like 500 pound 

 

honestly who gives a shit if it's 20 fps slower at 720p low lol 

it would easily max out my 2 cards at 1440p for gaming 

and fucking destroy a 7700k in everything else