Intel better than Ryzens in gaming?

[daiv]

When I've posted here before asking which CPU to buy for primarily gaming, I've been told by almost everyone to go with the new AMD Ryzen 1600/1700. 

 

I was pretty convinced until I see these benchmarks.

 

 

Now I was focused on the 1600x vs the i5-7600k. The 1600x is 50 dollars more, and it lost in FPS for every single game vs the i5-7600k. So why is everyone telling me to buy the 1600/1700? 

I understand the more cores is better, but if I'm mainly gaming, it shows that the Intel CPU's are much better.

[The Sloth]

you understand ryzen is a new platform so updates will improve things significantly also ryzen can do a lot more than an i5 can in terms of sheer power.  

[79wjd]

In terms of gaming, Intel is slightly better. But you get a lot less performance in everything else (and probably future gaming). So Ryzen is the better choice imo. 

[manikyath]

intel still winrars in terms of single core performance, but ryzen (which is very much still "beta"), is MUCH better value especially for gaming, where in most cases you done even really need that amount of single threaded crunching either way.

[Flavio hc 16]

We should start pointing out some things:

1 They do this tests with 1080ti, playing at 1080p, to put as much stress as possible on the cpu.  Try to see the same bencmark with 1070-1060 and you will see that there is no difference.

2 He is not showing the minimums  of those games, in wich ryzen destroys the i5

3 he is not considering the frame pacing of those games, where ryzen trash the i5

4 the intel platform is a dead end, meanwhile the am4 has pther 4 years of life for future upgrades

5 when games will start to use more than 4 cores, and we are starting to see these games, the i5 will get severely hampered 

6 in everithing that has the word "work" ryzen 5 eats the i5 alive

7 the ryzen 5 comes with a great stock cooler, the i5 hasn't got  one

8 the price difference is at most 20$

 

With ryzen you are looking at a long term investment. Imho i5 are pointless nowdays

[stealth80]

And of course i5 is 4 cores 0 threads, gonna start making a difference

[Princess Luna]

Dear god don't buy the i5 7600k... if you want to insist on Intel for its single core performance get the i7 7700 locked on a cheap motherboard and use stock cooler so you end up paying the same price and still get more threads which are going to be the future for high end gaming.

[Flavio hc 16]

 

Look at this, especially the minimums, and  consider that the 7600k is overclocked to 5 ghz

[Conan1600]

The final word imo is that anything above or below a intel i7 7700k is dead. when you are talking hundreds of frames it no longer matters really in gaming especially as so many people game on 60hz monitors and will never see more than 60fps in a game anyway. you are so much better served by the Ryzen platform imo as it does not hit the wall in gaming like an i5 therefore getting superior gaming and vastly superior productivity. There is no real wrong choice between the 2 though. either is simply marvelous. 

[Godlygamer23]

1 hour ago, stealth80 said:

And of course i5 is 4 cores 0 threads, gonna start making a difference

The Core i5 can execute four threads. Each core can execute one thread. Hyper-threading(and AMD's version of SMT) adds another thread to that, enabling each core to execute two threads.

[Godlygamer23]

42 minutes ago, Conan1600 said:

The final word imo is that anything above or below a intel i7 7700k is dead. when you are talking hundreds of frames it no longer matters really in gaming especially as so many people game on 60hz monitors and will never see more than 60fps in a game anyway. you are so much better served by the Ryzen platform imo as it does not hit the wall in gaming like an i5 therefore getting superior gaming and vastly superior productivity. There is no real wrong choice between the 2 though. either is simply marvelous. 

Your own post shows that Intel vs AMD in gaming can be circumstantial, and at the moment, there is no clear cut winner. For new builds, Ryzen might be the better option, but in terms of pure frame rate, you might be better served with an Intel CPU, and that might matter for people that game at 144Hz(such as me). The statement that anything below a 7700K is dead is nonsensical as many people(including me) are rolling on Core i5's, and I'm currently rolling on a 3570K, so I'm certainly a few generations behind. It's quite a stretch to state that anything below a 7700K is "dead" when different people have different requirements.

[stealth80]

36 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

The Core i5 can execute four threads. Each core can execute one thread. Hyper-threading(and AMD's version of SMT) adds another thread to that, enabling each core to execute two threads.

exactly what I said lol? 4 cores 0 threads

 

I said it that way to avoid confusion as we're getting to a point where very few CPU's (new releases) don't have hyper threading/SMT, but I know what you mean, I just don't wanna confuse it, as far as pure quads are concerned I don't think threads should be mentioned

 

I also agree that as far as Intel are concerned, anything below a 6700/7700 and k versions is a no go, Ryzen has got it fully wrapped, the only other intel option imo is the Pentium G4560 as the ultimate budget CPU, i3 and i5 are dead in the water for anyone considering a new build

 

Above Ryzen 5 and onto i7 range it's a toss up between pure gaming - i7  and production work Ryzen 7

 

Also consider, Ryzen is what? 6 weeks old? Its gonna improve

[Conan1600]

2 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Your own post shows that Intel vs AMD in gaming can be circumstantial, and at the moment, there is no clear cut winner. For new builds, Ryzen might be the better option, but in terms of pure frame rate, you might be better served with an Intel CPU, and that might matter for people that game at 144Hz(such as me). The statement that anything below a 7700K is dead is nonsensical as many people(including me) are rolling on Core i5's, and I'm currently rolling on a 3570K, so I'm certainly a few generations behind. It's quite a stretch to state that anything below a 7700K is "dead" when different people have different requirements.

You must understand though that you are not the mass market. you are an enthusiast who in order to gain every frame MUST atm be using a 1080 ti or higher, a high end 144hz monitor and a 7700k or you are fooling yourself as an i5 is incapable of giving maximum performance as well as anything below a 1080ti. Even at that you are talking a general 5-7% performance increase over equally priced Ryzen sku, unless it is the 2 games atm who are totally un optimized for ryzen where you see a 25% increase in performance. even at that you MUST turn off background processes in order to achieve better frame rates and you lose out on the ability to stream as efficiently so even for most enthusiast the ryzen platform excels. 

 

Honestly at this point the only way i can recommend intel for a new build personally is if the person is a competitive gamer, or if it just makes the customer happy as i am happy to take money despite my personal beliefs or even logic. if someone calls in and wants a FX in a new build and is not receptive to advice then i would be only to happy to sell them an inferior hardware platform.

[Godlygamer23]

3 hours ago, stealth80 said:

exactly what I said lol? 4 cores 0 threads

 

I said it that way to avoid confusion as we're getting to a point where very few CPU's (new releases) don't have hyper threading/SMT, but I know what you mean, I just don't wanna confuse it, as far as pure quads are concerned I don't think threads should be mentioned

Lack of SMT doesn't mean no threads. Threads are components of processes, and they're always there, and they're also required in order to understand why a 4770K would likely outperform a 4670K clock-for-clock despite the same number of cores and the same architecture.

 

I think I understand why you would want to avoid the mention of threads, but ultimately IMO you are doing the recipient of the explanation a disservice. 

[stealth80]

10 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Lack of SMT doesn't mean no threads. Threads are components of processes, and they're always there, and they're also required in order to understand why a 4770K would likely outperform a 4670K clock-for-clock despite the same number of cores and the same architecture.

 

I think I understand why you would want to avoid the mention of threads, but ultimately IMO you are doing the recipient of the explanation a disservice. 

I was merely stating that it's a 4 core CPU without any hyper threading, were disagreeing about same thing here - you don't need to inform me on this I'm pretty clued up on the difference between a thread, an SMT a logical core hyper thread etc, infact very clue'd up lol, I was merely stating that it had the 4 and no others and you know this ...

 

That 4770k would also only out perform that haswell refresh i5 if the software was programmed to utilised the extra threads (although the extra cache could help)