Ryzen 5 1600 vs i7-7800X: Ryzen 1080p Gaming Issues Explained; 7700k still King

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Please, Steve damaged ground pins, he probably had bent pins or uneven mounting pressure. This had nothing to do with overclocking the CPU.

Or dirt/TIM residue on the CPU from holding it that charred from the high current flows. There's only three ways you can get charring on electrical contacts, arching or reaction from a foreign substance with the third being just pure heat from the current flow but if that was the case the CPU would be fused to the pin.

[XenosTech]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I can't believe we're comparing a 220$ cpu to a 350$ and a 400$ cpu respectively in 1080p gaming. Who are these benchmarks even for? Tech news outlets need to wake the heck up and realize 1080p gaming isn't relevant anymore when benchmarking a cpu, and it definitely  isn't relevant when the price difference is so high. We finally have powerful hexa cores in the mainstream segment and all these people can think about is "hurr durr muh games"... no wonder intel has been milking the same old quad cores since sandy bridge. The only people buying a 350$ cpu exclusively for games are those with more money than sense, and they most likely aren't going to run 1080p, making the difference even smaller.

 

As for the performance gap, what do you expect when one cpu is running 900mhz faster than the other one and a third of the cores on the ryzen aren't even being used? Looking at the average it's actually very impressive that the ryzen 5 was able to get within 10% of the 7700k's performance considering the massive clock speed difference.

1080p isn't relevant... what are you even on about ? If 1080p wasn't so relevant why were people in uproar when Ryzen was barely matching the i5's in gaming ? A lot of people still game at 1080p than 1440p or 4k. Then let's add to the fact that the 1600 cost as much as an i5 so people will buy it for only gaming because it's so damn cheap overall compared to the 7700k and especially the 7800x.

[Jito463]

54 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

A lot of people still game at 1080p than 1440p or 4k.

Indeed, I like my 144Hz 1080p monitor.  While I've considered going 1440p, I don't really want to replace my monitor at this time.

[XenosTech]

Just now, Jito463 said:

Indeed, I like my 144Hz 1080p monitor.  While I've considered going 1440p, I don't really want to replace my monitor at this time.

I may replace mine later this year when I build a new system to a 120Hz or 144Hz. Need me a slice of high refresh rate gaming

[Jito463]

14 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I may replace mine later this year when I build a new system to a 120Hz or 144Hz. Need me a slice of high refresh rate gaming

If you plan to stick with 1080p, then I've been quite pleased with my Viewsonic XG2701.  They even make a 4k version of it, though I only found that out after I bought mine.

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

If you plan to stick with 1080p, then I've been quite pleased with my Viewsonic XG2701.  They even make a 4k version of it, though I only found that after I bought mine.

I plan to stick to 1080p for a while, I've only recently started gaming at 1080p when I built this last october but before that I was on 720p gaming to that point lol

[kiska3]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Tech news outlets need to wake the heck up and realize 1080p gaming isn't relevant anymore when benchmarking a cpu,

1080p, eliminates any GPU bottleneck to allow the CPU to run at its fullest potential. What do you want to see. All the bars aligned to exactly the same frame rate in a 4k benchmark? 

[XenosTech]

20 minutes ago, kiska3 said:

1080p, eliminates any GPU bottleneck to allow the CPU to run at its fullest potential. What do you want to see. All the bars aligned to exactly the same frame rate in a 4k benchmark? 

Maybe a benchmark in some mac gaming ?

[ravenshrike]

4 hours ago, XenosTech said:

If 1080p wasn't so relevant why were people in uproar when Ryzen was barely matching the i5's in gaming ?

Because people are stupid. The only use case when gaming that the 7700k is is significantly better is if you play twitch FPS's at 1080p on a 1080 or higher with a 120+ Hz monitor at max settings. If you drop the settings, you rapidly hit diminishing returns and can't take advantage of the increased performance unless you have very, very good reflexes.

[Taf the Ghost]

4 hours ago, XenosTech said:

1080p isn't relevant... what are you even on about ? If 1080p wasn't so relevant why were people in uproar when Ryzen was barely matching the i5's in gaming ? A lot of people still game at 1080p than 1440p or 4k. Then let's add to the fact that the 1600 cost as much as an i5 so people will buy it for only gaming because it's so damn cheap overall compared to the 7700k and especially the 7800x.

The funny thing is with X299 out now, Team Intel folks can finally admit the "smoothness" effect is real with extra cores. The super-high peak FPS on high-end cards is a function of extreme optimization of the Intel Ring Bus + L3 Cache system. However, that also means the ~200-250USD cheaper platform is the same in gaming. (The 7800X is a fine CPU, minus a little too much heat and Intel's segmentation choices.)

58 minutes ago, kiska3 said:

1080p, eliminates any GPU bottleneck to allow the CPU to run at its fullest potential. What do you want to see. All the bars aligned to exactly the same frame rate in a 4k benchmark? 

1080p Gaming doesn't remove the GPU bottleneck. It produces an ability for aspects of the game engine to run faster in certain situations on modern CPUs. There's still a slate of games that are almost completely GPU bound at 1080p. We just generally ignore them for benchmarking, even if we probably shouldn't. (Though Steve at Hardware Unboxed, of which this thread is about, tests a lot of them so we can actually see more than just the CPU-differential games.)

[VagabondWraith]

Digital Foundry released their benchmarks. Apparently, Skylake-X is awesome for gaming.

(We're still in the process of updating our AMD stats, and Ashes of the Singularity and Rise of the Tomb Raider have had Ryzen optimisation updates, so we've omitted our library results here.)

 

The only outlier is:

Techspot 7800X Witcher 3 results - 114

Digital Foundry - 132

 

Clearly shows that X299 is not a bad gaming platform, contrary to popular belief. Expensive gaming platform? No doubt. But it can certainly game and beat just about all CPU's.

 

[Taf the Ghost]

@VagabondWraith

 

Yup, get high speed RAM.

[Sauron]

7 hours ago, XenosTech said:

1080p isn't relevant... what are you even on about ? If 1080p wasn't so relevant why were people in uproar when Ryzen was barely matching the i5's in gaming ? A lot of people still game at 1080p than 1440p or 4k. Then let's add to the fact that the 1600 cost as much as an i5 so people will buy it for only gaming because it's so damn cheap overall compared to the 7700k and especially the 7800x.

1080p is relevant at the 200$ mark, it definitely is not at 350-400$. It's not relevant as a comparison of high end and heavily multithreaded cpus. And since the r5 wasn't in fact compared to an i5 but to 2 i7s in this case, I wonder what you're on about.

3 hours ago, kiska3 said:

1080p, eliminates any GPU bottleneck to allow the CPU to run at its fullest potential. What do you want to see. All the bars aligned to exactly the same frame rate in a 4k benchmark? 

'cept that only works if you're looking for absolute gaming performance. It definitely doesn't reflect a cpu's full potential and it doesn't MATTER when you're comparing cpus with such a large price disparity. What I WANT to see in this sort of comparison is whether the ryzen 5 can compete with the 400$ 6 core in tasks that actually need more than 4 cores, not in 1080p gaming. Honestly, was there any doubt on the fact that the 7700k with a 900mhz advantage would outperform the 1600 in 1080p games? Does anyone actually care what the 350$ offering performs like when they're shopping for a 220$ cpu?

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

I can't believe we're comparing a 220$ cpu to a 350$ and a 400$ cpu respectively in 1080p gaming. Who are these benchmarks even for? Tech news outlets need to wake the heck up and realize 1080p gaming isn't relevant anymore when benchmarking a cpu, and it definitely  isn't relevant when the price difference is so high. We finally have powerful hexa cores in the mainstream segment and all these people can think about is "hurr durr muh games"... no wonder intel has been milking the same old quad cores since sandy bridge. The only people buying a 350$ cpu exclusively for games are those with more money than sense, and they most likely aren't going to run 1080p, making the difference even smaller.

 

As for the performance gap, what do you expect when one cpu is running 900mhz faster than the other one and a third of the cores on the ryzen aren't even being used? Looking at the average it's actually very impressive that the ryzen 5 was able to get within 10% of the 7700k's performance considering the massive clock speed difference.

So your first paragraph questions why anyone would compare these two cpus, while your second paragraph actually gives a reason to compare these CPU's.

 

They are comparable in performance and consumers want to know this.  Price is a consideration for the buyer only, it is not a consideration for inclusion in reviews.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

So your first paragraph questions why anyone would compare these two cpus, while your second paragraph actually gives a reason to compare these CPU's.

 

They are comparable in performance and consumers want to know this.  Price is a consideration for the buyer only, it is not a consideration for inclusion in reviews.

I wonder why you'd compare them in 1080p gaming, not why you'd compare them in general.

[mr moose]

Just now, Sauron said:

I wonder why you'd compare them in 1080p gaming, not why you'd compare them in general.

becasue many consumers still game in 1080.   While you may not find many comparing the 1600 to a 7700K (specifically) in workstations,  you will find them being compared to the 6800k which is more expensive again than the 7700k.  So yes the r5 1600 is being compared with Intel's more expensive chips in other areas as well. 

 

You may not want to see them compared in something as mundane as 1080 gaming, but I and many others do to.  

[XenosTech]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

1080p is relevant at the 200$ mark, it definitely is not at 350-400$. It's not relevant as a comparison of high end and heavily multithreaded cpus. And since the r5 wasn't in fact compared to an i5 but to 2 i7s in this case, I wonder what you're on about.

Despite your odd beliefs 1080p gaming is by far more relevant than 4k or 1440p gaming. As stated the most common res for gaming today is 1080p so the tests are fine regardless of the price of the cpu. Something tells me if they benched this and it showed the 1600 getting creamed by 7800x you wouldn't be singing the tune you are now. Its like people turn off their brains just to spew fanboyism

[ravenshrike]

41 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

As stated the most common res for gaming today is 1080p so the tests are fine regardless of the price of the cpu.

And the most common refresh rate by so far it's not even funny is 60hz, most likely followed by either 75 or 120. Hard to say. Guess where any advantage of the 7700k et al are minimized or nullified depending on game? That's right, below 120 Hz.

[Misanthrope]

47 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Despite you're odd beliefs 1080p gaming is by far more relevant than 4k or 1440p gaming. As stated the most common res for gaming today is 1080p so the tests are fine regardless of the price of the cpu. Something tells me if they benched this and it showed the 1600 getting creamed by 7800x you wouldn't be singing the tune you are now. Its like people turn off their brains just to spew fanboyism

No actually that wasn't his assessment at all: 1080p is relevant but almost all people playing at 1080p would be in the 200 bucks range for both CPU and GPU (200+200) and without a high refresh rate monitor. And at that price the Ryzen 5s are absolutely a better value than the i5s at the same prices: Better minimum, quite better productivity vs slightly higher overall top performance on the i5 side and again because of the resolution and refresh rate for people in the 600-700 price range it doesn't really matters that much than the maximums are better since they all mostly cap at 60 fps.

 

 

[XenosTech]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

No actually that wasn't his assessment at all: 1080p is relevant but almost all people playing at 1080p would be in the 200 bucks range for both CPU and GPU (200+200) and without a high refresh rate monitor. And at that price the Ryzen 5s are absolutely a better value than the i5s at the same prices: Better minimum, quite better productivity vs slightly higher overall top performance on the i5 side and again because of the resolution and refresh rate for people in the 600-700 price range it doesn't really matters that much than the maximums are better since they all mostly cap at 60 fps.

 

 

you should read his original post and see what he said

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

No actually that wasn't his assessment at all: 1080p is relevant but almost all people playing at 1080p would be in the 200 bucks range for both CPU and GPU (200+200) and without a high refresh rate monitor. And at that price the Ryzen 5s are absolutely a better value than the i5s at the same prices: Better minimum, quite better productivity vs slightly higher overall top performance on the i5 side and again because of the resolution and refresh rate for people in the 600-700 price range it doesn't really matters that much than the maximums are better since they all mostly cap at 60 fps.

 

 

His original post was complaining primarily about the price difference between the two and how that should mean the two shouldn't be compared.   He used 1080 to justify his position.  However as has been pointed out several times now, price doesn't dictate whether two cpu's should/shouldn't be compared in a review,  performance does, and given most people still game in 1080 and some have other uses for their systems it is very much warranted to see both side by side in any review. 

 

 

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, XenosTech said:

Despite your odd beliefs 1080p gaming is by far more relevant than 4k or 1440p gaming. As stated the most common res for gaming today is 1080p so the tests are fine regardless of the price of the cpu. Something tells me if they benched this and it showed the 1600 getting creamed by 7800x you wouldn't be singing the tune you are now. Its like people turn off their brains just to spew fanboyism

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

His original post was complaining primarily about the price difference between the two and how that should mean the two shouldn't be compared.   He used 1080 to justify his position.  However as has been pointed out several times now, price doesn't dictate whether two cpu's should/shouldn't be compared in a review,  performance does, and given most people still game in 1080 and some have other uses for their systems it is very much warranted to see both side by side in any review. 

I still consider it a useless comparison given the use case and prices on the field. I don't know who buys a gtx 1080ti and a 7700k for 1080p, and I'm pretty sure it's not the overwhelming majority you seem to think it is, but regardless they have no use for this information - everyone already knew how this comparison would stack up. My point has never been that people don't play at 1080p, but rather that cpus haven't really mattered much in games for a while now. Yes, a 7700k may give you some 10-15% performance improvement on average at high framerates over a lower clocked i5 or ryzen 5, but for the most part it's just down to the graphics card - and the lower you go witht he gpu, the less the cpu matters.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

I still consider it a useless comparison given the use case and prices on the field. I don't know who buys a gtx 1080ti and a 7700k for 1080p, and I'm pretty sure it's not the overwhelming majority you seem to think it is, but regardless they have no use for this information - everyone already knew how this comparison would stack up. My point has never been that people don't play at 1080p, but rather that cpus haven't really mattered much in games for a while now. Yes, a 7700k may give you some 10-15% performance improvement on average at high framerates over a lower clocked i5 or ryzen 5, but for the most part it's just down to the graphics card - and the lower you go witht he gpu, the less the cpu matters.

Again, price has nothing to do with it.

Not everyone buys the CPU solely for gaming, I did point that out.

Not everyone will buy a 1080ti, but then if they tested the 7700k or 1600 with rx 460 you'd have no idea if poor results were caused by GPU or CPU.

Everyone needs a reference.  At the moment the 7700K seems to be the defacto datum everything is measured against.  Whether you like it or not.

 

All that aside it appears you are the only person who has a problem with this.

[tom_w141]

On ‎22‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 9:07 PM, VagabondWraith said:

I would consider X99 far worse as you can now get a 10 core for $750 less (let alone 12, 14 & 16 for less than last years 6950X) and an 8 core for $400 less. Not seeing the issue here. Fact is, they lowered prices so I no longer have to pay $1000+ for an 8 core.

I hope you said thanks to AMD for that one  Because Intel sure as shit didn't suddenly lower the prices by that much out of the goodness of their hearts

[grimreeper132]

well this is only good news for AMD, intel has put out a more expensive 6 core CPU, only for the cheaper 6 core they have made to be nearly as fast, while much cheaper. Ryzen is not about performance it's about price to performance and in that regard there is no comparison with intel as AMD just walks away with that crown. That and AMD isn't trying to hard lock you into certain platform types, e.g. RAID keys, and ECC RAM support for all CPUs, including R3 (which will be very helpful in the server space, as sometimes you dinny need much power you need ECC RAM, and although R3 doesn't have massive max RAM support, it will be enough for many cases) ryzen is trying to go after the person who wants all round power, at a cheap price while intel is after the people who want power in one area, and don't mind throwing their cash to intel. 

 

Yes I know linus is using X99, but that is for completely different reasons, as intel was willing to give them the 10 cores for either free or much much cheaper, canny remember which ones, and they wanted extremely stable platform, and they didn't think either AMD or intels new offerings could offer them