i5 4570 vs Ryzen 1700

[DocSwag]

3 minutes ago, He_162 said:

@paulo93Look at it this way, you can pay 220$ USD for a R5 1600, and get very similar max and average frames to the i7-7700k (330$ USD), but Ryzen will also be smoother, and costs less, so it's up to you from there.

How does a 1600 have similar max and averages to a 7700k?!?

[He_162]

Just now, DocSwag said:

How does a 1600 have similar max and averages to a 7700k?!?

No, it's 110$ cheaper too.

 

Does the 7700k come even close to it in any other kind of benchmark besides gaming? How long is the 7700k gonna last before it's considered second rate like the i7-4790k?

 

Ryzen really is the better buy.

[DocSwag]

Just now, He_162 said:

No, it's 110$ cheaper too.

 

Does the 7700k come even close to it in any other kind of benchmark besides gaming? How long is the 7700k gonna last before it's considered second rate like the i7-4790k?

 

Ryzen really is the better buy.

But you have to buy a new motherboard, and ram, whereas a 4790k requires neither.

 

The 4790k isn't really that far behind, it's still ahead of Ryzen and will remain ahead.

 

The 4790k is a better gaming CPU than Ryzen. That's just how it is, you can't argue that, since benchmarks support that.

[He_162]

Just now, DocSwag said:

But you have to buy a new motherboard, and ram, whereas a 4790k requires neither.

 

The 4790k isn't really that far behind, it's still ahead of Ryzen and will remain ahead.

 

The 4790k is a better gaming CPU than Ryzen. That's just how it is, you can't argue that, since benchmarks support that.

He already said he is going to buy new ram, and motherboard, and doesn't care about anything but the CPU.

 

Do you own a 4790k? I do. It's slower (less smooth) than Ryzen in every game I have ever played it on, and it can't even top 60 FPS in Arma 3, let alone beat Ryzen at any kind of CPU intensive game that supports threads properly, or loves > threads.

 

It's just a losing argument saying it's better than Ryzen because it gets higher frames, when it can hardly do so and keep them smooth.

[He_162]

If he wants a good CPU, just wait until the start of 2018, and get Intel's coffee lake i7 immediately, that will give you the best frames of any CPU on the market, or get Intel X299, and a i7-7740k in June when that comes out.

 

If you want it right away, and you want smoother frames than current processors, get a Ryzen 1600.

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, He_162 said:

He already said he is going to buy new ram, and motherboard, and doesn't care about anything but the CPU.

 

Do you own a 4790k? I do. It's slower (less smooth) than Ryzen in every game I have ever played it on, and it can't even top 60 FPS in Arma 3, let alone beat Ryzen at any kind of CPU intensive game that supports threads properly, or loves > threads.

 

It's just a losing argument saying it's better than Ryzen because it gets higher frames, when it can hardly do so and keep them smooth.

Tests show i7s pulling higher averages and mins than Ryzen, so I'm not sure where the stuttering you're getting is coming from...

 

Except tests also show it pulling higher mins.

 

They could just not get a new mobo and ram, and save some money and get a 4790k instead.

 

If they're bent on getting a new mobo and ram, a 7700k is a better buy.

[He_162]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Tests show i7s pulling higher averages and mins than Ryzen, so I'm not sure where the stuttering you're getting is coming from...

 

Except tests also show it pulling higher mins.

 

They could just not get a new mobo and ram, and save some money and get a 4790k instead.

 

If they're bent on getting a new mobo and ram, a 7700k is a better buy.

I forgot to mention "Zen+" AMD's next architecture (7nm!) is going to be using AM4, so no upgrade but a CPU upgrade would be required if he gets Ryzen now.

 

So on top of Ryzen being smoother in every game I listed several times that aren't in those benchmarks that you keep ignoring (Arma, DayZ, Battlefield) You see stuttering on the i7, and the i5 he has.

So not only is it smoother in games that NEED all those cores, and threads, and still way more than good enough for the rest, its future proof, and faster in every other application he may use it for.

 

Ryzen is the way to go #jointherebellion

[DocSwag]

3 minutes ago, He_162 said:

I forgot to mention "Zen+" AMD's next architecture (7nm!) is going to be using AM4, so no upgrade but a CPU upgrade would be required if he gets Ryzen now.

 

So on top of Ryzen being smoother in every game I listed several times that aren't in those benchmarks that you keep ignoring (Arma, DayZ, Battlefield) You see stuttering on the i7, and the i5 he has.

So not only is it smoother in games that NEED all those cores, and threads, and still way more than good enough for the rest, its future proof, and faster in every other application he may use it for.

 

Ryzen is the way to go #jointherebellion

Tests don't show Ryzen being smoother than i7s, only i5s (which no one should be buying anymore).

 

I won't deny that Ryzen has a better upgrade path than Kaby lake or haswell, but if they plan on keeping the CPU until 2020 or so it doesn't matter.

 

For pure gamers, Ryzen still isn't the way to go, unless the upgrade path is something you really need for whatever reason.

[He_162]

Just now, DocSwag said:

Tests don't show Ryzen being smoother than i7s, only i5s (which no one should be buying anymore).

 

I won't deny that Ryzen has a better upgrade path than Kaby lake or haswell, but if they plan on keeping the CPU until 2020 or so it doesn't matter.

 

For pure gamers, Ryzen still isn't the way to go, unless the upgrade path is something you really need for whatever reason.

Why would he want to spend 110$ more for a few extra frames he won't notice on anything less than 144hz, which he won't hit on all games with either CPU with a GTX 1070?

I have a GTX 1060, I get smoother frames because Ryzen can easily deliver to my GPU without a stall, or any kind of issue, and the i7-4790k has less threads to do so with.

 

Any way you look at it except for max frames, the Ryzen CPU looks better, and it is.

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, He_162 said:

Why would he want to spend 110$ more for a few extra frames he won't notice on anything less than 144hz, which he won't hit on all games with either CPU with a GTX 1070?

I have a GTX 1060, I get smoother frames because Ryzen can easily deliver to my GPU without a stall, or any kind of issue, and the i7-4790k has less threads to do so with.

 

Any way you look at it except for max frames, the Ryzen CPU looks better, and it is.

It's not a few frames, a 7700k is far ahead of a 1600, 10-20% ahead in fact.

 

But in the future once OP gets a GPU upgrade they might notice the difference. Maybe not now, but if they upgrade to a 1080 ti equivalent in the future or even faster, the difference will be apparent.

 

How so? Tests show it having higher mins as well.

[He_162]

Just now, DocSwag said:

It's not a few frames, a 7700k is far ahead of a 1600, 10-20% ahead in fact.

 

But in the future once OP gets a GPU upgrade they might notice the difference. Maybe not now, but if they upgrade to a 1080 ti equivalent in the future or even faster, the difference will be apparent.

 

How so? Tests show it having higher mins as well.

10 to 20% he won't need unless he has a 144hz monitor, and even less of a lead in averages except for a few select titles.

 

"How so"? Seriously dude? I clearly just stated it was because I have a 1060, and the Review shows with a 1080.

 

Ryzen can deliver more frames to a 1070 and 1060 than it can a 1080, and gets higher minimums with both of those GPU's, and after it gets to the 1070 its about equal, and past that, it gets harder for Ryzen to keep up due to memory latency.

 

When games optimize use of Ryzens cache that margin will become smaller, and games already have.

 

If you keep reading my sentence and just getting "Ryzen is better" and then repeatedly asking me why, after not reading why, I'm gonna just give up on you.

[DocSwag]

Just now, He_162 said:

10 to 20% he won't need unless he has a 144hz monitor, and even less of a lead in averages except for a few select titles.

 

"How so"? Seriously dude? I clearly just stated it was because I have a 1060, and the Review shows with a 1080.

 

Ryzen can deliver more frames to a 1070 and 1060 than it can a 1080, and gets higher minimums with both of those GPU's, and after it gets to the 1070 its about equal, and past that, it gets harder for Ryzen to keep up due to memory latency.

 

When games optimize use of Ryzens cache that margin will become smaller, and games already have.

 

If you keep reading my sentence and just getting "Ryzen is better" and then repeatedly asking me why, after not reading why, I'm gonna just give up on you.

1070 is way closer to a 1080 than a 1060, me your explanation doesn't make sense. Memory latency? From what? Cache? DRAM? If a CPU is just faster, it doesn't make sense for it to become slower than a different CPU if you use a slower GPU...

 

Games already use the cache, as evidenced by the large difference between the 1500x and 1400.

[He_162]

Just now, DocSwag said:

1070 is way closer to a 1080 than a 1060, me your explanation doesn't make sense. Memory latency? From what? Cache? DRAM? If a CPU is just faster, it doesn't make sense for it to become slower than a different CPU if you use a slower GPU...

 

Games already use the cache, as evidenced by the large difference between the 1500x and 1400.

Again, you ignore the central point of what I was trying to say, and this time to further your motive.

 

Alright, here.
 

Ryzen uses core complexes, two of them, and the thing that connects them is AMD's "infinity fabric" which has latency. The latency between the cache, 8mb in each complex, causes lag in getting frames to the GPU.

 

When a game decides not to send so much information between the caches, it will get better frame delivery times.

 

That being said, Ryzen starts to bottleneck the 1080, but doesn't bottleneck a 1070 by anywhere near as much as the 1080. The 1060 it does not bottleneck, latency may cause a reduction in frames, but it isn't the CPU itself that bottlenecks it.

 

As for the i5-4590, and i7-4790k, they don't have that latency issue, but they are just slower in general, in IPC, and in core / thread count.

 

The Ryzen 5 1600 CPU is the best for the job.

[Lord Nicoll]

2 hours ago, paulo93 said:

Hello!

I'm thinking of making an upgrade to my cpu. It will be mainly for gaming.

I currently have a i5 4570 and I was thinking in buying a Ryzen 1700.

I've seen diferent opinions on this, some say that the ryzen is better, other say that it wont be a noticeable diference.

What is your opinion on this? Is it worth it? Should I leave the Ryzen and buy another cpu instead? (similiar prices only)

Thank you in advance!

I think the i7 7700k might be a better option for gaming, even though the Ryzen R7 1700 is around the same price, with a good cooler it can probably do 5GHz, with the around 7% IPC gain over Ryzen, and a whole 1GHz, you'll notice that more than double the thread count. However to get good overclocks on Intel you need either an AIO or to de-lid or both, preferably going for custom loop, it just makes so much heat. 

[He_162]

If you're going for Ryzen you want the R5 1600, or 1600x. It offers more threads than an i7, and is no different in gaming performance over the 8 core Ryzen processors, and being over 100$ cheaper is a nice bonus.

 

Perks of Ryzen:
-Future proof, the Am4 platform will be reused with "Zen+"

-Cheaper

-More threads

-Smoother gameplay on a 1070 and worse GPU's

-More power efficient

-Better in day to day tasks, and anything but gaming

-Only slightly worse in maximum frames than 5th gen and below intel

-Better frametimes than intel

-Cheaper motherboards can overclock (B350)

-All chips can reach the same overclock, and require similar voltages (3.9ghz on all non X chips, and 4ghz to 4.1ghz on X chips, base clock.)

-Don't require high end cooling to get the maximum performance out of your CPU (3.8ghz - 3.9ghz @ 1.35v)

 

Perks of i7-7700k:

-Higher maximum and average frames (not enough to be noticeable)

-Does not bottleneck higher end GPU's

 

Yeah, I really can't think of any more benefits to the intel build.

[DocSwag]

45 minutes ago, He_162 said:

Again, you ignore the central point of what I was trying to say, and this time to further your motive.

 

Alright, here.
 

Ryzen uses core complexes, two of them, and the thing that connects them is AMD's "infinity fabric" which has latency. The latency between the cache, 8mb in each complex, causes lag in getting frames to the GPU.

 

When a game decides not to send so much information between the caches, it will get better frame delivery times.

 

That being said, Ryzen starts to bottleneck the 1080, but doesn't bottleneck a 1070 by anywhere near as much as the 1080. The 1060 it does not bottleneck, latency may cause a reduction in frames, but it isn't the CPU itself that bottlenecks it.

 

As for the i5-4590, and i7-4790k, they don't have that latency issue, but they are just slower in general, in IPC, and in core / thread count.

 

The Ryzen 5 1600 CPU is the best for the job.

I know that that's the case, but it doesn't explain why an i7 would become worse than ryzen for a 1060 but better for a 1080.

 

Ryzen's IPC is similar to Haswell. 

 

For pure gaming, benchmarks still show that i7s are the best cpus to get. 

25 minutes ago, He_162 said:

If you're going for Ryzen you want the R5 1600, or 1600x. It offers more threads than an i7, and is no different in gaming performance over the 8 core Ryzen processors, and being over 100$ cheaper is a nice bonus.

 

Perks of Ryzen:
-Future proof, the Am4 platform will be reused with "Zen+"

-Cheaper

-More threads

-Smoother gameplay on a 1070 and worse GPU's

-More power efficient

-Better in day to day tasks, and anything but gaming

-Only slightly worse in maximum frames than 5th gen and below intel

-Better frametimes than intel

-Cheaper motherboards can overclock (B350)

-All chips can reach the same overclock, and require similar voltages (3.9ghz on all non X chips, and 4ghz to 4.1ghz on X chips, base clock.)

-Don't require high end cooling to get the maximum performance out of your CPU (3.8ghz - 3.9ghz @ 1.35v)

 

Perks of i7-7700k:

-Higher maximum and average frames (not enough to be noticeable)

-Does not bottleneck higher end GPU's

 

Yeah, I really can't think of any more benefits to the intel build.

7700ks don't require high end cooling to reach super duper high either. Frame times are still better than i7s. And you don't have a source for being better than an i7 on lower gpus. 

 

The thing is, OP is also gonna be upgrading their GPU in the future, that's just common sense, so most likely the difference in performance will become more apparent once better gpus are purchased. 

[He_162]

7 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I know that that's the case, but it doesn't explain why an i7 would become worse than ryzen for a 1060 but better for a 1080.

 

Ryzen's IPC is similar to Haswell. 

 

For pure gaming, benchmarks still show that i7s are the best cpus to get. 

7700ks don't require high end cooling to reach super duper high either. Frame times are still better than i7s. And you don't have a source for being better than an i7 on lower gpus. 

 

The thing is, OP is also gonna be upgrading their GPU in the future, that's just common sense, so most likely the difference in performance will become more apparent once better gpus are purchased. 

Ryzen's CCX has latency, and often the frames seem to be in line with that latency, so in higher end GPU's that require more frames coming to them per second will be bottlenecked by Ryzen due to that CCX latency, if we could just send frames without commands crossing a CCX like in an intel 4th gen i7, its going to do better.

 

Ryzen's IPC is equal to broadwell, and slightly worse than skylake / kabylake and cannot reach the same clocks.

 

Some games do not require specific commands to cross the CCX before sending a frame, so here is an example of that:

 

It's 1080p, and neck to neck with intel on a GTX 1080 Ti.

 

You could not say the i7-4790k could do that, that there, is a GPU bottleneck, it cannot get any higher due to the GPU.

[He_162]

I'll get some GTX 1070 performance specs here for the OP:

 

As you can see, Ryzen is on part with intel, but from what I've personally seen, its smoother than Haswell, or haswell refresh.

[DocSwag]

19 hours ago, He_162 said:

Ryzen's CCX has latency, and often the frames seem to be in line with that latency, so in higher end GPU's that require more frames coming to them per second will be bottlenecked by Ryzen due to that CCX latency, if we could just send frames without commands crossing a CCX like in an intel 4th gen i7, its going to do better.

 

Ryzen's IPC is equal to broadwell, and slightly worse than skylake / kabylake and cannot reach the same clocks.

 

Some games do not require specific commands to cross the CCX before sending a frame, so here is an example of that:

 

It's 1080p, and neck to neck with intel on a GTX 1080 Ti.

 

You could not say the i7-4790k could do that, that there, is a GPU bottleneck, it cannot get any higher due to the GPU.

Only one game though, there's other's where the CPU does become the bottleneck.

 

Plus, CCX latency isn't the only reason why Ryzen could fall behind. The IPC is Haswell level (no, not Broadwell as evidenced by the 1800x getting the same single thread cinebench score as the 6900k but it's clocked higher, indicating a lower IPC), and clock speeds are lower, resulting in lower single threaded performance which can also limit performance in some titles.

18 hours ago, He_162 said:

I'll get some GTX 1070 performance specs here for the OP:

 

As you can see, Ryzen is on part with intel, but from what I've personally seen, its smoother than Haswell, or haswell refresh.

I've shown tests that don't see the 4790k having low minimums.

 

And the thing is, maybe they'll be similar in performance when it comes to a 1070, but OP is probably gonna upgrade to a faster GPU in the future, which will potentially make CPU bottlenecks more apparent.

[jjohnthedon1]

23 hours ago, DocSwag said:

If you're only gaming Ryzen's not worth it since you could get a 4790k instead and get at least as good gaming performance without having to get a new mobo or ram.

My 1600 is as good as my 4790k was at 4.8 in gaming but way smoother 

[jjohnthedon1]

23 hours ago, DocSwag said:

But you have to buy a new motherboard, and ram, whereas a 4790k requires neither.

 

The 4790k isn't really that far behind, it's still ahead of Ryzen and will remain ahead.

 

The 4790k is a better gaming CPU than Ryzen. That's just how it is, you can't argue that, since benchmarks support that.

It's really not in terms of smoothness 

you can chuck all the graphs and benchmarks u like at me

iv had both and ryzen is by far a better experience 

[DocSwag]

32 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

My 1600 is as good as my 4790k was at 4.8 in gaming but way smoother 

 

13 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

It's really not in terms of smoothness 

you can chuck all the graphs and benchmarks u like at me

iv had both and ryzen is by far a better experience 

The thing is, this doesn't make sense to me. If spikes aren't showing up on frame time charts, then why would it be smoother?

[jjohnthedon1]

37 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

 

The thing is, this doesn't make sense to me. If spikes aren't showing up on frame time charts, then why would it be smoother?

I really don't no

and I get what your saying because that's what I thought when I had my i7

but it's just unquestionably smoother 

[MrJarhead]

On 23/04/2017 at 6:58 PM, He_162 said:

No, I have a 4790k, and an i5-4590, and a Ryzen 1600, trust me, the 4790k could not hold a candle to the Ryzen in a game like Arma, DayZ, or any other CPU bound game.

 

Also, Ryzen gets much higher minimums, and is smoother.

you sure about that, id like to see the proof.

[RAM555789]

On 4/23/2017 at 1:48 PM, shady ahmed said:

it depends on the gpu not the cpu of u are a gamer 

 

GPUs are important but if I get a 1070 and stick it with a G4560 its going to be bottlenecked. A CPU is the heart of the system, and heavily affects the performance of the system, not the GPU.