Ryzen 3 > Ryzen 5

[IKnight]

So why not use the unused processing power for something good? Start folding people! 

[Prox1ma]

20 hours ago, jdwii said:

The 1300X at 4.0ghz will be at 95-100% in modern titles and even a 1060 will see GPU usage drop below 90%. 

 

Ryzen 3 is really suited for people with a 1050Ti or less. 

 

Wouldn't a R7 1700 running the same title run at 95-100% usage for the core that is being used? Also which titles are using 6-8 threads to the point where the performance is noticeably different? I really want to know.

[Sfekke]

Doesn't this depend on the end user.
OP Suggests that not a lot of gamers use high refresh rate screens, I know quite a bit of people that do.

Some people just make enough money to blow it on stuff they do not need, sad but true.

I stand by my opinion which is: "Whatever floats your boat"

You know best what you actually require, lying to yourself might make you feel good since you have a better system. But you did blow a pretty penny on a PC, that money could have been saved for later, spent on food, renovation, etc.

I guess it also depends on a lifestyle, like expensive cars.
Some people would like a nicer car, instead of a nicer home.

Anyhow, opinion. Judge me, or agree with me.

Just keep in mind that every person uses their system however they like, not how that "one guy on the internet" told him to.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ezilkannan said:

Wouldn't a R7 1700 running the same title run at 95-100% usage for the core that is being used? Also which titles are using 6-8 threads to the point where the performance is noticeably different? I really want to know.

This is a great question one that needs to be addressed i will explain some things now. 

 

A CPU like a 7700K has high IPC and high clock speeds to back it up, this means if the game can use 8 cores it doesn't really matter since IPC+Frequency is making the 7700K perform like a beast regardless making the difference between a 8700K and 7700K smaller. 

 

However with FX for example it has 8 integer units but each one of them are FAR weaker then the 7700K and 8700K we are talking basically 1/3 the IPC so games that can use 6-8 cores will heavily be welcomed on a 8350fx but performance will be between a dual core kabylake and dual core with HT kabylake(skylake-coffeelake all the same IPC) core but only in titles that can use every single core in the FX processor. 

 

Take a look here 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1455-ryzen-3/page3.html

 

In this review they include a 4ghz Ryzen 3 and compare it to other processors including a STOCK 1600 that means it has 25% less frequency while having 50% more cores and it wins by 23% in hitman and 19% in BF1 and this is just 2 games as a quick example many more i can show. 

 

So stock 1600 having 25% less frequency then a 4ghz OC ryzen 3 and still beating it by 20% in these games should prove once and for all games ARE using more than 4 cores. 

 

A lot of titles do then we have ones like evil within 2 that don't but we are starting to see more titles use more cores then ones that use 2-4. 

[AlTech]

On 11/5/2017 at 4:01 AM, minervx said:

snip

the 1600 is a better value than the 1200 and 1300X.

 

If you're talking about 1400 or 1500X then it's just as bad value as the R3.

[Prox1ma]

1 minute ago, jdwii said:

However with FX for example it has 8 integer units but each one of them are FAR weaker then the 7700K and 8700K we are talking basically 1/3 the IPC so games that can use 6-8 cores will heavily be welcomed on a 8350fx but performance will be between a dual core kabylake and dual core with HT kabylake(skylake-coffeelake all the same IPC) core but only in titles that can use every single core in the FX processor. 

 

Take a look here 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1455-ryzen-3/page3.html

 

In this review they include a 4ghz Ryzen 3 and compare it to other processors including a STOCK 1600 that means it has 25% less frequency while having 50% more cores and it wins by 23% in hitman and 19% in BF1 and this is just 2 games as a quick example many more i can show. 

 

So stock 1600 having 25% less frequency then a 4ghz OC ryzen 3 and still beating it by 20% in these games should prove once and for all games ARE using more than 4 cores. 

 

A lot of titles do then we have ones like evil within 2 that don't but we are starting to see more titles use more cores then ones that use 2-4. 

I know an 6 core amd chip != 6 core intel chip, I was not talking about i7s vs R3s, clearly Intel has better IPC, but I was asking before, are R5s and R7s just R3s with extra cores (or for Intel, are i7s just i5s with extra cores) or is there any ipc difference between the chips. From what you are saying it sounds like R3 has poorer IPC than R7 (i5 has poorer ipc than i7). But someone mentioned it is not.

 

Regarding the benchmarks, that's like 3 titles, and unless the user wants to play high frames (even which cannot be attained by an OC R5 or R7, avg is still less than 144), the performance difference would be barely noticeable. Ofcourse if the user has good enough eyes to find difference between a 100 fps and 130 fps, and it matters for these titles (although, I don't think it does for Hitman or evil within), he should get the R5 or R7.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Ezilkannan said:

I know an 6 core amd chip != 6 core intel chip, I was not talking about i7s vs R3s, clearly Intel has better IPC, but I was asking before, are R5s and R7s just R3s with extra cores (or for Intel, are i7s just i5s with extra cores) or is there any ipc difference between the chips. From what you are saying it sounds like R3 has poorer IPC than R7 (i5 has poorer ipc than i7). But someone mentioned it is not.

 

Regarding the benchmarks, that's like 3 titles, and unless the user wants to play high frames (even which cannot be attained by an OC R5 or R7, avg is still less than 144), the performance difference would be barely noticeable. Ofcourse if the user has good enough eyes to find difference between a 100 fps and 130 fps, and it matters for these titles (although, I don't think it does for Hitman or evil within), he should get the R5 or R7.

Well it appears i failed the fact is the future of gaming is more cores a game that performs 20% worse on a 4 core CPU with 25% more clock speed then a 6 core is just proof alone, games are not going to use less CPU resources in the future they will be using more. 

 

A Ryzen 3 paired with anything higher-end then a 1050Ti will see their GPU usage drop below 90%. 

 

Ryzen 3 is not pushing any AAA game above 100FPS on average if anything 0.1 and 1% lows will be below 60fps.  

 

 

[Prox1ma]

2 minutes ago, jdwii said:

Well it appears i failed the fact is the future of gaming is more cores a game that performs 20% worse on a 4 core CPU with 25% more clock speed then a 6 core is just proof alone, games are not going to use less CPU resources in the future they will be using more. 

 

A Ryzen 3 paired with anything higher-end then a 1050Ti will see their GPU usage drop below 90%. 

 

Ryzen 3 is not pushing any AAA game above 100FPS on average if anything 0.1 and 1% lows will be below 60fps.  

 

 

and R5s, R7s are not yet past 144 in most titles and will stay that way. There will be one or two titles yes, but will a majority move towards using multiple cores and threads? I seriously doubt that. Not until atleast the next upgrade cycle for a user getting an R3 or R7 right now. That is why 4c4t are here to stay for a long time for *gaming*. An R3 will not go obsolete for gaming in the next 5 - 6 years.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Ezilkannan said:

and R5s, R7s are not yet past 144 in most titles and will stay that way. There will be one or two titles yes, but will a majority move towards using multiple cores and threads? I seriously doubt that. Not until atleast the next upgrade cycle for a user getting an R3 or R7 right now. That is why 4c4t are here to stay for a long time for *gaming*. An R3 will not go obsolete for gaming in the next 5 - 6 years.

They already have can't you see that? 6 core Ryzen does far better in gaming then a 4 core Ryzen in benchmarks. Even the latest call of duty is scaling well. Ryzen 3 is obsolete today in gaming like BF1 multiplayer a 2500K is aging  terribly compared to the 2600K these things have been reported by techdeals as well as even reading reviews. 

 

 

I can't believe you are even claiming a CPU that is already being pushed to 100% in modern titles will be fine in 5 years that is just fallacious and absurd. 

 

Ryzen 3 can't even keep a frame rate above 60fps yet its here to stay for 5-6 years 

 

 

[Prox1ma]

14 minutes ago, jdwii said:

They already have can't you see that? 6 core Ryzen does far better in gaming then a 4 core Ryzen in benchmarks. Even the latest call of duty is scaling well. Ryzen 3 is obsolete today in gaming like BF1 multiplayer a 2500K is aging  terribly compared to the 2600K these things have been reported by techdeals as well as even reading reviews. 

 

 

I can't believe you are even claiming a CPU that is already being pushed to 100% in modern titles will be fine in 5 years that is just fallacious and absurd. 

 

Ryzen 3 can't even keep a frame rate above 60fps yet its here to stay for 5-6 years 

 

 

Again, that's a single title,
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-4

pretty much in all these benchmarks the 2500K is not too far behind 2600K. This trend will follow in future. I rest my case.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Ezilkannan said:

Again, that's a single title,
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-4

pretty much in all these benchmarks the 2500K is not too far behind 2600K. This trend will follow in future. I rest my case.

I recommend everyone to take a look at how the OC Ryzen 3 at 3.9ghz compares to a 1800X at 3.9ghz in even GTA 5 a game that doesn't scale perfectly even in that its 20% slower lol. 

 

 

[Prox1ma]

Here is the difference between core wise cpus for the latest CoD WW2
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/call-duty-wwii-pc-performance-analysis/2/ Its actually not well optimized for more than 4 cores.

[Prox1ma]

5 minutes ago, jdwii said:

I recommend everyone to take a look at how the OC Ryzen 3 at 3.9ghz compares to a 1800X at 3.9ghz in even GTA 5 a game that doesn't scale perfectly even in that its 20% slower lol. 

 

 

Like I said, R3 does a 100~110ish Average, while R7 does 120~130ish average. Neither can do 144+ in most titles right now, I doubt they will in future games either. This difference will stay. Now if you are someone who cares about high fps, but won't be able to get 144+ anyway, but still want that 120fps average, by all means get a R7. Otherwise, R3 will be fine and it will stay relevant. Games are not optimizing for higher cores and threads as we have expected and they will stay that way.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Ezilkannan said:

Like I said, R3 does a 100~110ish Average, while R7 does 120~130ish average. Neither can do 144+ in most titles right now, I doubt they will in future games either. This difference will stay. Now if you are someone who cares about high fps, but won't be able to get 144+ anyway, but still want that 120fps average, by all means get a R7. Otherwise, R3 will be fine and it will stay relevant. Games are not optimizing for higher cores and threads as we have expected and they will stay that way.

It has nothing to do with what frame rate they can handle it has to do that a Ryzen 3 is performing 20+% worse, games will only become more CPU intensive so i stick to my statement a Ryzen 3 shouldn't be paired with anything higher-end then a 1050Ti. 

 

Sorry but 0.1% and 1% frame rates matter way more then average frame rates and a weak CPU will bring the frame rate down. Ryzen does not have the IPC of kaby/skylake/coffeelake and it doesn't have the overclocking ability to hit 5ghz so the only thing left is its high core counts. 

 

Games are using 4+ cores today and in those games Ryzen is competing quite well at least before coffee-lake. I mean come on even a 8400 from Intel is even with their 7700K. 

 

Ryzen 4 core 4 threaded CPU is just not enough to handle gaming at 60fps even a 1500X is having trouble. I will not recommend it except for builds around 600$ or less. Simply not a good balanced machine. 

[Prox1ma]

12 minutes ago, jdwii said:

It has nothing to do with what frame rate they can handle it has to do that a Ryzen 3 is performing 20+% worse, games will only become more CPU intensive so i stick to my statement a Ryzen 3 shouldn't be paired with anything higher-end then a 1050Ti. 

 

Sorry but 0.1% and 1% frame rates matter way more then average frame rates and a weak CPU will bring the frame rate down. Ryzen does not have the IPC of kaby/skylake/coffeelake and it doesn't have the overclocking ability to hit 5ghz so the only thing left is its high core counts. 

 

Games are using 4+ cores today and in those games Ryzen is competing quite well at least before coffee-lake. I mean come on even a 8400 from Intel is even with their 7700K. 

 

Ryzen 4 core 4 threaded CPU is just not enough to handle gaming at 60fps even a 1500X is having trouble. I will not recommend it except for builds around 600$ or less. Simply not a good balanced machine. 

Like I said, if the difference between a 1% low of 75, and 1% low of 100, in specific titles, matters to you, by all means get the R7
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1928?vs=2016

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ezilkannan said:

Like I said, if the difference between a 1% low of 75, and 1% low of 100, in specific titles, matters to you, by all means get the R7
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1928?vs=2016

Or get a R5 

 

R7 for purely gaming has yet to be proven to be an upgrade in scores at least in 2017

[Prox1ma]

26 minutes ago, jdwii said:

Or get a R5 

 

R7 for purely gaming has yet to be proven to be an upgrade in scores at least in 2017

R5 is a good cpu, its right where it needs to be in price and performance. R5 1600X the absolute maximum one will ever need from Ryzen for gaming.