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

[Taf the Ghost]

4 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

Splitting hairs here. Numbers look incorrect. 7900X when slower than the 7740X shouldn't have won in any of those titles except ashes. Definitely not by 15-30 fps. Something. Is. Wrong.

Crysis scales better with more cores, so if they're running the primary thread around the same speed, then the more-cores should win. It's a good engine like that.

 

Like with the Ryzen 7 line, I'm pretty sure the 7820X and 7900X provide a smoother experience in gaming, but we're still having issues explaining that in an objective manner. (My assumption is that it's not Engine or CPU-based but memory sub-system lag that will crop up when the 4c parts are pinned at 100% and the paused frame is actually System side not Engine side. It's enough to throw off the mind that something is wrong.)

[tom_w141]

12 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Crysis scales better with more cores, so if they're running the primary thread around the same speed, then the more-cores should win. It's a good engine like that.

Though the chart i linked somewhere previous in this thread has a 4 core on top of Crysis.

[Misanthrope]

On a related note, on the games where you actually can and would need a high refresh rate (so called "esports") and Ryzen...did just fine: Below the 7700k but still able to maintain 144 and even beyond on some titles

 

 

So again we must narrow this advantage even further down: People with extremely high end rigs looking to max FPS specifically on AAA or otherwise heavy titles might need the 7700k, e-sporters can do just fine with Ryzen. Not better than intel but certainly a lot cheaper and with a lot more options.

[Simon771]

On 21. 7. 2017 at 8:15 PM, Brainless906 said:

I cant watch the video currently but are we acting shocked that a 4.9ghz 7700k is faster than a 4.0ghz 1600?

and at $224.00 vs the i7s $330.00 price point with that performance difference "king" is technically right but...not to anyone with any kind of monetary sense.

What's interesting about that is more about skylake-x vs skylake.

skylake-x on 4,7GHz is performing much worse than i7 7700k at 4,9GHz ... sure 4,9 is more than 4,7, but that's small difference, while FPS difference is pretty big.

 

The way I see it right now: Do you want to play at 1080p, pushing over 100fps? go with 7700k.

If you are playing at 1080p 60Hz, or 1440p, 4K at any FPS, then you go with Ryzen.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

What's interesting about that is more about skylake-x vs skylake.

skylake-x on 4,7GHz is performing much worse than i7 7700k at 4,9GHz ... sure 4,9 is more than 4,7, but that's small difference, while FPS difference is pretty big.

 

The way I see it right now: Do you want to play at 1080p, pushing over 100fps? go with 7700k.

If you are playing at 1080p 60Hz, or 1440p, 4K at any FPS, then you go with Ryzen.

Actually depends on which games: Check my previous post above.

[Simon771]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Actually depends on which games: Check my previous post above.

I'm well aware of that, but I just want to let Intel fanboys to feel better.

[XenosTech]

30 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

On a related note, on the games where you actually can and would need a high refresh rate (so called "esports") and Ryzen...did just fine: Below the 7700k but still able to maintain 144 and even beyond on some titles

 

 

So again we must narrow this advantage even further down: People with extremely high end rigs looking to max FPS specifically on AAA or otherwise heavy titles might need the 7700k, e-sporters can do just fine with Ryzen. Not better than intel but certainly a lot cheaper and with a lot more options.

Exactly why I'm ditching my i5 for a ryzen build. The only triple A games I really play now are bf1 and r6 but I've started to play back a lot of older game like dragon's nest and cs:go. I think ryzen might be a bit betetr for DN since I've noticed my fps sitting around 12 when I'm in town but in dungeons I get 65 fps, that game doesn't touch the gpu beacuse my usage is like 1-2% on the gpu if so much and the clocks are like 300-700mhz

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Simon771 said:

What's interesting about that is more about skylake-x vs skylake.

skylake-x on 4,7GHz is performing much worse than i7 7700k at 4,9GHz ... sure 4,9 is more than 4,7, but that's small difference, while FPS difference is pretty big.

 

The way I see it right now: Do you want to play at 1080p, pushing over 100fps? go with 7700k.

If you are playing at 1080p 60Hz, or 1440p, 4K at any FPS, then you go with Ryzen.

7740X scores are improving with BIOS updates. There's been some clear chipset issues and some boards are performing worse than others by more than the normal margin you'd expect.

 

As for the test that @Misanthrope linked, some reviewers have had issues getting Nvidia + Ryzen to scale to high frame rates in rocket league. (Though the Fury can get those high numbers.) So I was a little surprised that he got it up there without too much issue.  When you start talking about 240 Hz refresh rates, really subtle things can cause problems. Though the TF2 issue is probably the same as with Dota2. There's still some weird issue with Source + Ryzen. With high-level technical issues, there could be a lot of things going on.

 

And the FPS difference mostly just exists with the 1080-class of GPUs. Below that, the difference is pretty minimal.