Ryzen vs 7700k

[MrAlbertrocks]

Why isn't AMD releasing a CPU that can compete against the 7700k? I am in the market for the best gaming CPU and i can't stop hearing people praising Ryzen, but AFAIK, the 7700k is still far superior for gaming. Is the 7700k a safe buy or is AMD planning to compete?

[Dietrichw]

Because Ryzen isn't the best at gaming but is great at more mixed workloads. 7700K is still the best chip for games. AMD won't be able to beat the 7700K in performance this year

[Droidbot]

AMD isn't targeting gamers exclusively like Intel, it's targeting content creators and gamers who don't mind a lower end gaming experience and the same rendering and content creation performance as an $1000 CPU for $500. 

[Armakar]

AMD doesn't have the money to manufacturer something that can compete with the 7700k. They haven't had for years, that's why they focus on markets intel hasn't covered.

[WereCat]

Because AMD is filling hole in the market.

Yes, 7700k performs better but if you want to game and stream then Ryzen is a lot better choice.

 

But it is not just about games. If you wanted something for CPU heavy productivity, until now your only option was X99 which was not really affordable for many people.

[stealth80]

keep in mind that at higher resolutions and memory frequencies the difference between a 7700k and R7 is pretty small anyway

[i_build_nanosuits]

16 minutes ago, MrAlbertrocks said:

Why isn't AMD releasing a CPU that can compete against the 7700k? I am in the market for the best gaming CPU and i can't stop hearing people praising Ryzen, but AFAIK, the 7700k is still far superior for gaming. Is the 7700k a safe buy or is AMD planning to compete?

AMD will not be able to puch a CPU that can defeat the i7-7700K in gaming anytime soon.

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

keep in mind that at higher resolutions and memory frequencies the difference between a 7700k and R7 is pretty small anyway

...for now!

that's such a stupid argument...this is like assuming that games will never evolve...they will never get more complex....more demanding, require more computation...

Assuming that GPU's will not get 40% faster year after year for the next 5 years...and that in 3 years from now you'll have GTX 1080ti performance for 200$...

We all know this is what is going to happen...so why keep your head in the sand and buy a lower performing CPU...the intel chips are faster, and they have more headroom for gaming.

[NTDaws]

workloads yes, gaming no.

[othertomperson]

8 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

...for now!

that's such a stupid argument...this is like assuming that games will never evolve...they will never get more complex....more demanding, require more computation...

Assuming that GPU's will not get 40% faster year after year for the next 5 years...and that in 3 years from now you'll have GTX 1080ti performance for 200$...

We all know this is what is going to happen...so why keep your head in the sand and buy a lower performing CPU...the intel chips are faster, and they have more headroom for gaming.

Because the difference is in what ways games evolve. Do they evolve in such a way that they require more and more IPC and faster clock-speeds and so give chips like the 7700K even more of a lead, or do they seek more parallelism to be able to spread that load across more cores? If they do that then CPUs like the 6900K and 1700 will massively overtake the 7700k. It could go either way at this point.

 

Given the fact that the consoles essentially have very low power 8-core Bulldozer-based CPUs at their heart, that could force the latter. Could.

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Because the difference is in what ways games evolve. Do they evolve in such a way that they require more and more IPC and faster clock-speeds and so give chips like the 7700K even more of a lead, or do they seek more parallelism to be able to spread that load across more cores? If they do that then CPUs like the 6900K and 1700 will massively overtake the 7700k. It could go either way at this point.

 

Given the fact that the consoles essentially have very low power 8-core Bulldozer-based CPUs at their heart, that could force the latter. Could.

come on...they've been beating the multi-threaded game drum since the early days of the bulldozer chips...games by nature won't scale well across multiple CPU cores...they are processes that need to happen one after the other really fast...IPC will always remain king when it comes to gaming...of course you want a certain level of multi-threaded performance and an optimal amount of stuff that can be processed at the same time, but a good fast quad-core especially one with SMT or HT is all you'll need for gaming.

DX12 was supposed to bring the multi-threaded games...and it's even worse...everything run like crap in dx12.

[stealth80]

14 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

...for now!

that's such a stupid argument...this is like assuming that games will never evolve...they will never get more complex....more demanding, require more computation...

Assuming that GPU's will not get 40% faster year after year for the next 5 years...and that in 3 years from now you'll have GTX 1080ti performance for 200$...

We all know this is what is going to happen...so why keep your head in the sand and buy a lower performing CPU...the intel chips are faster, and they have more headroom for gaming.

How do you know?

 

[othertomperson]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

come on...they've been beating the multi-threaded game drum since the early days of the bulldozer chips...games by nature won't scale well across multiple CPU cores...they are processes that need to happen one after the other really fast...IPC will always remain kind when it comes to gaming...of course you want a certain level of performance and an optimal amount of stuff that can be processed at the same time, but a good fast quad-core especially one with SMT or HT is all you'll need for gaming.

I beg to differ

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

I beg to differ

 

 

that is 4 cores maxed out and 2 cores idle...you should know better...the game engine is switching the threads between the cores and it looks like it's using all them cores...but it's not...get some more advanced softwares to monitor the game engine and you'll see...even if you would have 20 cores...it would still look like it's using all of them...at a lower %...but in reality...it would still be maxing on 4 main engine threads.

 

Otherwise, how would you explain that for example an i7-7700K greatly outperform your 12 thread CPU in ROTTR?

[othertomperson]

5 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

that is 4 cores maxed out and 2 cores idle...you should know better...the game engine is switching the threads between the cores and it looks like it's using all them cores...but it's not...get some more advanced softwares to monitor the game engine and you'll see...even if you would have 20 cores...it would still look like it's using all of them...at a lower %...but in reality...it would still be maxing on 4 main engine threads.

 

Otherwise, how would you explain that for example an i7-7700K greatly outperform your 12 thread CPU in ROTTR?

...it doesn't

 

Watch side by side. I included the time stamp in the link, but in case the embed didn't take advantage of it ROTTR benchmark starts at 4:05

[i_build_nanosuits]

11 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

...it doesn't

 

Watch side by side. I included the time stamp in the link, but in case the embed didn't take advantage of it ROTTR benchmark starts at 4:05

look at the frametime on the bottom left portion of the overlay...see how much ''cleaner'' and flat line it is as compared to the other solution? this mean that at this point it's probably hitting GPU limits...hence the cleaner frametime line.

 

here, download this, double click on a process to open the details dialogue... the threads tab gives a sortable list of all threads including context switch delta and CPU time.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

 

you could even use windows perfmon which is now included in windows 10 to get a better understanding of the worker threads for ROTTR's foundation engine.

 

https://malwaretips.com/threads/how-to-use-sysinternals-process-explorer.45491/

[othertomperson]

11 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

look at the frametime on the bottom left portion of the overlay...see how much ''cleaner'' and flat line it is as compared to the other solution? this mean that at this point it's probably hitting GPU limits...hence the cleaner frametime line.

 

How about you run your own damned benchmarks. I'm not going to do this at 2am to satisfy your ego. The GPU they used was an overclocked Titan X(Pascal) at 1080p. If that were the bottleneck my own GPU utilisation would have been higher.

 

As it was my Sandy Bridge CPU was about on par more or less with a Skylake i7. That would not have happened if the game were limited to 4 cores. Core for core the 3960X is nowhere near as good as the 7700K.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

 

How about you run your own damned benchmarks. I'm not going to do this at 2am to satisfy your ego. The GPU they used was an overclocked Titan X(Pascal) at 1080p. If that were the bottleneck my own GPU utilisation would have been higher.

alright then, have a good night...but since you're taking it like that...when you have time...find me a game that ''look'' like it's using only some of the threads and not all of them in your afterburner overlay...think about ''single-threaded'' games...find one...run it with your overlay on...and realize ''damn this too use all the threads''...then you'll want to learn how this works

 

[othertomperson]

23 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

alright then, have a good night...but since you're taking it like that...when you have time...find me a game that ''look'' like it's using only some of the threads and not all of them in your afterburner overlay...think about ''single-threaded'' games...find one...run it with your overlay on...and realize ''damn this too use all the threads''...then you'll want to learn how this works

 

 

That was ROTTR too.

 

And the attachment is Mass Effect 3, clearly using just two cores predominantly.

 

Even if it doesn't use 12 threads completely perfectly, it's clearly a step up from where we were in the Directx 9 era, and the fact that it's using two additional cores well enough to overcome the IPC increase of Skylake and match it is evidence that your assertion that games are not moving towards utilising higher core counts is wrong.