Ryzen and Threadripper good for gaming?

[Guest]

Ok so ive noticed that Ryzen and Threadripper chips are being used in more gaming rigs. It seems counter-intuitive to me, because although these chips have many cores with decent speeds, not many gaming loads need more than 4 cores, so therefore going with some high clocked Intel would be better. (Not saying go Intel i have a Ryzen chip). So why have i been seeing lots of "go Ryzen"? Have all the content creators come out of the dark now that these chips exist? Or do these chips have some insane gaming ability im unaware of? (If they do tell me how to use i have a 1700X)

[LienusLateTips]

Optimization. 

[DannyRyu]

26 minutes ago, NovaMan01 said:

Ok so ive noticed that Ryzen and Threadripper chips are being used in more gaming rigs. It seems counter-intuitive to me, because although these chips have many cores with decent speeds, not many gaming loads need more than 4 cores, so therefore going with some high clocked Intel would be better. (Not saying go Intel i have a Ryzen chip). So why have i been seeing lots of "go Ryzen"? Have all the content creators come out of the dark now that these chips exist? Or do these chips have some insane gaming ability im unaware of? (If they do tell me how to use i have a 1700X)

cheaper than Intel counter parts, overclockable, more and more games are beginning to use more than 4 cores and you always have the ability to stream and edit or other tasks that require more cores.

so it's generally a smarter idea Why limit your self for a couple fps at the same price?

also on a separate note, it makes more sense as a consumer because the more money AMD has the better chance they have of being even more competitive with intel and we can enjoy better technology for cheaper! Competition between companies can be a good thing for the consumer!

[TheKDub]

7 minutes ago, NovaMan01 said:

Ok so ive noticed that Ryzen and Threadripper chips are being used in more gaming rigs. It seems counter-intuitive to me, because although these chips have many cores with decent speeds, not many gaming loads need more than 4 cores, so therefore going with some high clocked Intel would be better. (Not saying go Intel i have a Ryzen chip). So why have i been seeing lots of "go Ryzen"? Have all the content creators come out of the dark now that these chips exist? Or do these chips have some insane gaming ability im unaware of? (If they do tell me how to use i have a 1700X)

 

Ryzen? Yes. Threadripper? Not so much.

 

Ryzen does a pretty good job at destroying Intel with multi threaded performance, and only slightly loses on single thread performance. If the game is optimized for a few fast cores, it'll likely do better on something like an i7 7700K, or if it's optimized for more cores, it'll likely do better on something such as a R7 1700X.

[Colexd]

It's cheaper. And I'd willingly sacrifice a few fps(if ever) for more multithreaded performance

[HKZeroFive]

Because fanboyism. From an objective point of view, there's no denying that the i7-7700K remains the better chip for someone whose only agenda is to game and there's no denying that the R7 1700 remains the better chip for someone whose workload is highly multithreaded (e.g. streaming, rendering, editing etc.).

 

But people love to root for the underdog and that's why nearly everyone and their pet instinctively shout out "Ryzen!".

[Humbug]

some people are still living off the myth that more than 4 threads is useless for gaming. This is simply not true anymore. Although there is more to do games today already utilize multithreading extensively.

 

When I bought my i7 3770k years ago it was no faster than an i5 3570k in gaming. These days however there is no way an i5 3570k will keep up with me.

 

Yes threadripper is overkill for gaming.

But Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 are ideal and on the intel side i7 3770k.

also you have to look at smoothness and not just avg fps.

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Humbug said:

some people are still living off the myth that more than 4 threads is useless for gaming. This is simply not true anymore. Although there is more to do games today already utilize multithreading extensively.

 

When I bought my i7 3770k years ago it was no faster than an i5 3570k in gaming. These days however there is no way an i5 3570k will keep up with me.

 

Yes threadripper is overkill for gaming.

But Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 are ideal and on the intel side i7 3770k.

also you have to look at smoothness and not just avg fps.

 

 

Does either one win out in smoothness?

[Humbug]

9 minutes ago, NovaMan01 said:

Does either one win out in smoothness?

Ryzen 5 will beat i5 in smoothness.

Ryzen 7 and i7 will both be smooth. Only if you have CPU heavy background tasks will the Ryzen 7 beat the i7 in smoothness.

i7 will have higher fps in more games than ryzen 7 does.

[Suika]

It works, I'd say, but it's not "the best" for gaming.

 

Most people play at 60Hz and Ryzen is way more than capable of that, and provides a lot more threads for the price which is great for multitasking and adding a layer of future resistance. Quad cores are finally dropping out of relevance in highend gaming, so having additional threads will be perfect for the budget savvy gamer. Unfortunately where it falls behind is 144+Hz gaming, where the i7-7700k is objectively the best processor for. I've personally ruled out Ryzen in my upgrade path as my intent is 144Hz gaming.

[kreechrr]

17 minutes ago, Suika said:

It works, I'd say, but it's not "the best" for gaming.

 

Most people play at 60Hz and Ryzen is way more than capable of that, and provides a lot more threads for the price which is great for multitasking and adding a layer of future resistance. Quad cores are finally dropping out of relevance in highend gaming, so having additional threads will be perfect for the budget savvy gamer. Unfortunately where it falls behind is 144+Hz gaming, where the i7-7700k is objectively the best processor for. I've personally ruled out Ryzen in my upgrade path as my intent is 144Hz gaming.

I mean, it's really only limited with 144Hz 1080p for SOME games. My ROG Swift PG248Q is a 1080p monitor up to 180Hz (which it wouldn't achieve in any games but Rocket League and Overwatch), but I leave it at 144Hz and I stay in 120-144Hz depending on game. I just ordered a 1440p 144Hz panel that seems to level out the performance deltas to effectively the same performance after optimizations have continued to roll out.

that being said, Ryzen is still a newer platform and far less refined than Kabylake, so getting a 4GHz overclock while also hitting 3200MHz simultaneously seems to be purely up to silicone lottery luck of the draw, where the 7700k will be more consistent from sample to sample.

[porina]

I'd rate Ryzen as "good enough", especially for those on tight budgets and/or at 60 Hz. Wasn't impressed with my OC'd 1700 when it failed to beat my 6600k system, both with the same 980Ti SLI in it chasing high fps. To not sacrifice clocks while chasing more cores, I'm now testing a 7800X build at the moment. 6 cores, best overclock to 4.9 GHz so far, stable enough to run GTAV but not widely verified yet. I'm also on the thermal limit at that point. I've not decided on 24/7 settings yet as I want to play with adaptive voltage more, and it wouldn't hurt to do a delid. The cost isn't much more than a 7700k/1700 build.

[MasterApoc]

2 hours ago, porina said:

I'd rate Ryzen as "good enough", especially for those on tight budgets and/or at 60 Hz. Wasn't impressed with my OC'd 1700 when it failed to beat my 6600k system, both with the same 980Ti SLI in it chasing high fps. To not sacrifice clocks while chasing more cores, I'm now testing a 7800X build at the moment. 6 cores, best overclock to 4.9 GHz so far, stable enough to run GTAV but not widely verified yet. I'm also on the thermal limit at that point. I've not decided on 24/7 settings yet as I want to play with adaptive voltage more, and it wouldn't hurt to do a delid. The cost isn't much more than a 7700k/1700 build.

I don't know where you live but where I'm from (germany) the CPU is around 40€(1700X or i7-7700) - 100€ (R7 1700) more expensive and the MB (Chipset 299) cost twice as much (around 150€ to 200€ more) than a Z270 or AM4 x370 MB. So the whole package would be around 200-300€ more expensive.

[porina]

2 hours ago, MasterApoc said:

I don't know where you live but where I'm from (germany) the CPU is around 40€(1700X or i7-7700) - 100€ (R7 1700) more expensive and the MB (Chipset 299) cost twice as much (around 150€ to 200€ more) than a Z270 or AM4 x370 MB. So the whole package would be around 200-300€ more expensive.

I'm in UK. Just to get quick numbers using pcpartpicker - and I will only use sellers I recognise so this isn't necessarily the lowest price they list - 7800X is £339. 1700(X) are £274/306 - ok, that had come down a bit since I last looked at it. 7700k is £296. As an example like for like comparison, Asus Z270 TUF mark 2 is £131, X299 TUF mark 2 is £220. They don't do a TUF X370, so swapping that with the Prime Pro at £138.

 

So we have the 7800X combo around £559, 7700k combo around £427 (£132 less), and 1700(X) combo at £412/444 (£147/£115 less). I wasn't saying it was no difference, but that the difference isn't that big in the context of a whole system build. If you were doing high-ish end gaming build you'd be looking at 1080 or 1080Ti which would be about as much again, before we even consider other components. For the price difference the 7800X gets you two more cores than the 7700K and almost keeping up in clocks, although you will need decent cooling in either case if you go for the highest overclocks. Compared to the 1700(X) you will be short a couple of cores, but offsetting that still is a significant clock bump. It wont suit everyone and optimisations otherwise can influence things. I'm not suggesting everyone should get a 7800X, but if you want a balance of both cores and clocks without paying a lot more, it is an option within reach.

[TorqueS]

Well, after seeing a handful of reviews and results from reputable tech sources and also playing a bit with my R5 1600, I have come to the following conclusion.

 

For absolute low end the Pentiums are still a decent choice.

For low end R3 1200 on a B350 mobo,while still pretty costly, is a good investment for some 1080p gaming and eSports, paired with as high as an RX 570/RX 580/GTX 1060(though there will be some bottlenecks)

 

For midrange, R5 1600 reigns supreme. There is absolutely no argument for the i5s. Stock clock, the R5 1600 trades the locked i5s (7400/7500), albeit costing a bit more. If you're on the absolute edge moneywise, 1500X should be ok. I don't really like the 1400 since it comes with the Wraith Stealth cooler. It's decent but quite on the line when it comes to stability.

When you think about 7600K+Z270 mobo, the cost exceeds that of a Ryzen platform with OC ability, so it strengthens the argument even more.

Now there are some exceptions involving eSports with high FPS, but even that is a bit forced, as those high FPS numbers will likely draw people towards an i7.

 

For high end mainstream, R7 1700 and i7 7700k are both valid options. Productivity wise, the R7 wins, for gaming the i7 7700K wins. Here it depends on what the focus of the user is, gaming or productivity(that actually brings money to the user, thus requiring better performance, because otherwise, for a gaming YT channel the i7 7700K isn't too shabby)

 

 

These are my 2 cents on this topic.

[ravenshrike]

7 hours ago, HKZeroFive said:

Because fanboyism. From an objective point of view, there's no denying that the i7-7700K remains the better chip for someone whose only agenda is to game and there's no denying that the R7 1700 remains the better chip for someone whose workload is highly multithreaded (e.g. streaming, rendering, editing etc.).

Unless the person gaming is primarily playing high refresh FPS's at max settings or are a pro gamer able to take advantage of non visible refresh rates well above what the monitor is capable of the 7700k really isn't the better chip. For everyone else a narrower framerate band is better. So basically, unless you are a very specific use case and have the hardware to back it up, the 7700k is not the better chip.

 

 

[Ryzen init bro]

8 hours ago, Humbug said:

Ryzen 5 will beat i5 in smoothness.

Ryzen 7 and i7 will both be smooth. Only if you have CPU heavy background tasks will the Ryzen 7 beat the i7 in smoothness.

i7 will have higher fps in more games than ryzen 7 does.

The ryzen r7 and r5 from what I have seen in blind tests done in the internet and my own personal experience provide a smoother experience when gaming.

only on a fresh install of windows and only the game running is the i7 comparable to ryzen a smoothness.

[HKZeroFive]

12 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Unless the person gaming is primarily playing high refresh FPS's at max settings or are a pro gamer able to take advantage of non visible refresh rates well above what the monitor is capable of the 7700k really isn't the better chip. For everyone else a narrower framerate band is better. So basically, unless you are a very specific use case and have the hardware to back it up, the 7700k is not the better chip.

That's not a good enough argument. It doesn't matter whether or not people will notice the difference at lower refresh rates; the fact remains that the i7-7700K is better in raw gaming performance... and therefore, the better choice for someone who solely games.

 

Like I always say; why buy the lesser performing chip?

[ravenshrike]

4 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

That's not a good enough argument. It doesn't matter whether or not people will notice the difference at lower refresh rates; the fact remains that the i7-7700K is better in raw gaming performance... and therefore, the better choice for someone who solely games.

That's like saying that a drag racer is better than a rally car. They're both race cars so clearly the faster one is the better car.

[Not_Sean]

20 hours ago, HKZeroFive said:

Because fanboyism. From an objective point of view, there's no denying that the i7-7700K remains the better chip for someone whose only agenda is to game and there's no denying that the R7 1700 remains the better chip for someone whose workload is highly multithreaded (e.g. streaming, rendering, editing etc.).

 

But people love to root for the underdog and that's why nearly everyone and their pet instinctively shout out "Ryzen!".

I'd drop the word Fanboy for Hypetrain.. as Alienware ain't fan boys of anything except money, but they'll gladly sell you a retarded threadripper "G3merL33t" system cause its the hot item at the moment. People who buy can be labeled fanboy but think op was taking about retailers selling threadripper "Gaming" pcs 

30 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Like I always say; why buy the lesser performing chip?

because its cheaper. I did and gladly will buy the 1600 over the 7700K any day of the week, Yes I completely agree the 7700 is the king, and its got the best speeds BUT at (NZ Prices) $150+ cheaper I'd rather sit with a CPu that still does great and rather buy a better GPU than a Better CPU for gaming as well as having that little bit of extra headroom for streaming. 

23 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

That's like saying that a drag racer is better than a rally car. They're both race cars so clearly the faster one is the better car.

hahaha nice comparison. 

[HKZeroFive]

9 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

That's like saying that a drag racer is better than a rally car. They're both race cars so clearly the faster one is the better car.

So your analogy basically highlights how both cars have their strengths and weaknesses. Same goes with the i7-7700K and R7 1700.

1 hour ago, Not_Sean said:

I'd drop the word Fanboy for Hypetrain.. as Alienware ain't fan boys of anything except money, but they'll gladly sell you a retarded threadripper "G3merL33t" system cause its the hot item at the moment. People who buy can be labeled fanboy but think op was taking about retailers selling threadripper "Gaming" pcs

I was mostly referring to OP's question of why "Ryzen" has been essentially the go-to answer for the past few months, despite Intel's chip performing better.

1 hour ago, Not_Sean said:

because its cheaper. I did and gladly will buy the 1600 over the 7700K any day of the week, Yes I completely agree the 7700 is the king, and its got the best speeds BUT at (NZ Prices) $150+ cheaper I'd rather sit with a CPu that still does great and rather buy a better GPU than a Better CPU for gaming as well as having that little bit of extra headroom for streaming. 

Price to performance is a factor but that's not the subject we're discussing. If you want the best performing gaming chip and if your budget can cater it, then the i7-7700K is undeniably better... especially in heavily CPU-bound scenarios and in games such as CS:GO or Dota 2.

[ravenshrike]

8 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

So your analogy basically highlights how both cars have their strengths and weaknesses. Same goes with the i7-7700K and R7 1700.

Yes, but both races are meant as substitutes for gaming. Productivity workloads would be something like tractor-pulling.

[HKZeroFive]

1 minute ago, ravenshrike said:

Yes, but both races are meant as substitutes for gaming. Productivity workloads would be something like tractor-pulling.

How does that analogy even work? A drag racer excels on a drag strip, a rally car excels on a rally stage... but gaming is just gaming. If your analogy is highlighting the fact that both are race cars, then it's heavily flawed; you don't drive a drag racer on a rally stage, don't you?

 

Same goes with gaming (and for other uses); you buy the better performing chip.