Is Ryzen 1700x+ low latency memory better than 7700k at pure gaming?

[Adh]

So someone told me that ryzen 1700x 3.8 ghz +low latency ram does better/on par with intel 7700k 5.0ghz. he hooked me up with this video. he claimed that even if a game only optimizes 4 cores, ryzen will have very close/equal/better performance than 7700k. what do you guys think? Enlighten me.

 

 

[cj09beira]

it helps a lot, but the ryzen vs i7 debate shouldn't be about the 10fps you gain in games where you are already getting 90+fps, and more about how the ryzen chip isn't running at 100%(or very near it) on many games, the extra cores will help more in the long run

[sambarr]

3 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

it helps a lot, but the ryzen vs i7 debate shouldn't be about the 10fps you gain in games where you are already getting 90+fps, and more about how the ryzen chip isn't running at 100%(or very near it) on many games, the extra cores will help more in the long run

Anything that benefits from multi-threaded workloads is going to benefit immensely from those extra cores, as he said.

 

But if you're looking to build a platform right now, you'll want to skip intel 7th gen chips and buy a coffee lake build instead, as chips become available. There's no reason to buy 7th gen anymore, except if you get a really nice deal.

[ARikozuM]

Not at all. If you're running both systems with the same hardware, the better chip will do more. The 7700K will beat Ryzen in any gaming scenario due to having more done in the same span of time while not subjecting itself to interconnect latency. 

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Not at all. If you're running both systems with the same hardware, the better chip will do more. The 7700K will beat Ryzen in any gaming scenario due to having more done in the same span of time while not subjecting itself to interconnect latency. 

go inform yourself

[sambarr]

6 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

go inform yourself

Well, it's true at stock speeds. Once you overclock it, that difference goes away. I get your point, however.

 

4ghz Ryzen 7 1700(x) is roughly equal in IPC to an OCed 7700k at 5ghz, if you factor in very fast memory like 3200/3400+ mhz memory.

 

You are definitely getting more cores for your money with the ryzen chip.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

go inform yourself

Inform myself on what? Ryzen finally matching the 7700K with info that we knew months ago when we were encouraging faster RAM? 

 

Also, I should let you know that he used a Vega GPU whose drivers seem to favor Ryzen more heavily than an Nvidia 1080 Ti. 

[cj09beira]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Inform myself on what? Ryzen finally matching the 7700K with info that we knew months ago when we were encouraging faster RAM? 

"The 7700K will beat Ryzen in any gaming scenario" do i need to say more ? hope not

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

"The 7700K will beat Ryzen in any gaming scenario" do i need to say more ? hope not

And you think that a few exceptions change that? Watch Dogs 2 uses more than eight cores, easily viewable on enthusiast platforms, with its weather and AI; why isn't the 1700X getting more done? 

[MyName13]

Don't listen to that guy, r5 1600 can't even match i5 8400.

[Morgan MLGman]

8 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Don't listen to that guy, r5 1600 can't even match i5 8400.

That's not true actually, those two perform almost identically in games with the R5 1600 being a bit slower in gaming and a bit faster in productivity:

 

8 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

And you think that a few exceptions change that? Watch Dogs 2 uses more than eight cores, easily viewable on enthusiast platforms, with its weather and AI; why isn't the 1700X getting more done? 

There are a few games in which a 1700X would be faster than an i7-7700K, so I wouldn't say that the i7 is faster in "any gaming scenario" but it's faster in general for gaming. Which doesn't necessarily mean much because that difference will be only seen with a very high-end GPU on a relatively small resolution.

[cj09beira]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

And you think that a few exceptions change that? Watch Dogs 2 uses more than eight cores, easily viewable on enthusiast platforms, with its weather and AI; why isn't the 1700X getting more done? 

YES, any =\= most

[MyName13]

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

That's not true actually, those two perform almost identically in games with the R5 1600 being a bit faster in productivity:

 

There are a few games in which a 1700X would be faster than an i7-7700K, so I wouldn't say that the i7 is faster in "any gaming scenario" but it's faster in general for gaming. Which doesn't necessarily mean much because that difference will be only seen with a very high-end GPU on a relatively small resolution.

I don't trust HU anymore because his benchmarks sometimes differ too much in favor of amd (and some other things that make them look like amateurs).Look at 720p performance, that's r5 1600x, not r5 1600 btw.i5 is 30% faster in R6 siege and 25% in BF1.In which games is r7 faster than i7?

[done12many2]

27 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

it helps a lot, but the ryzen vs i7 debate shouldn't be about the 10fps you gain in games where you are already getting 90+fps, and more about how the ryzen chip isn't running at 100%(or very near it) on many games, the extra cores will help more in the long run

 

9 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

That's not true actually, those two perform almost identically in games with the R5 1600 being a bit faster in productivity:

 

There are a few games in which a 1700X would be faster than an i7-7700K, so I wouldn't say that the i7 is faster in "any gaming scenario" but it's faster in general for gaming. Which doesn't necessarily mean much because that difference will be only seen with a very high-end GPU on a relatively small resolution.

 

 

What you guys are missing is the point and spirit of the thread.  It was a very simply question.

 

"Is Ryzen 1700x+ low latency memory better than 7700k at pure gaming?"

 

The answer is no.  Sure you could throw a bunch of "buts" or a few examples showing otherwise, but that does not change the fact that the overall answer to the question is no.  Not in the majority of cases. 

 

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

I don't trust HU anymore because his benchmarks sometimes differ too much in favor of amd (and some other things that make them look like amateurs).Look at 720p performance, that's r5 1600x, not r5 1600 btw.i5 is 30% faster in R6 siege and 25% in BF1.In which games is r7 faster than i7?

 

He is definitely the go to for those that favor AMD.  Seems like everyone is starting to catch on to this. 

[sambarr]

"Is Ryzen 1700x+ low latency memory better than 7700k at pure gaming?"

 

Why talk about 7th gen though? No one in their right mind will buy a 7th gen i7 without a significant discount at this time of year. 8400/8600k/8700k is where it's at. 

[MyName13]

6 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

He is definitely the go to for those that favor AMD.  Seems like everyone is starting to catch on to this. 

Remember those r3 1200 benchmarks?They performed like Pentium and i5 2500k stock and yet he recommended r3.

[Morgan MLGman]

9 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

I don't trust HU anymore because his benchmarks sometimes differ too much in favor of amd (and some other things that make them look like amateurs).Look at 720p performance, that's r5 1600x, not r5 1600 btw.

That's an R5 1600 @4GHz to be precise. Also, 720p performance? Really? Show me one person buying one of those CPUs and still genuinely gaming at 720p.

1080p: a negligible difference between the two, not noticeable unless your GPU is a 1080Ti and you're playing at 165Hz

1440p: again, identical performance

I believe we can easily classify this as similar gaming performance varying from game to game in favor of one or the other... Also, watch the end of that video, Steve tells the verdict in two different ways with both being actually valid.

9 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

What you guys are missing is the point and spirit of the thread.  It was a very simply question.

 

"Is Ryzen 1700x+ low latency memory better than 7700k at pure gaming?"

 

The answer is no.  Sure you could through a bunch of "buts" or a few examples showing otherwise, but that does not change the fact that the overall answer to the question is no.  Not in the majority of cases.

Of course! We were only debunking a statement saying that an i7-7700K is faster in any gaming scenario That's simply not true because there are some games in which an R7 1700X with fast RAM would be faster

[cj09beira]

the 4 core i7 chips will suffer from the same problems that the i5s are starting to suffer, not enough threads, right now not much is being done on the cpu, but with more powerful cpus on the market, devs will start using more cpu perf, meaning those cpus that are now having great perf but are at 100% already will suffer a lot more than the cpus that at first sight seem slower but have more cores and right now have much lower usage.

also using low res to determine future perf with faster cards doesnt work, its been proven in the past, 

so ignore 720p results and even 1080 low, unless you want to run at those resolutions and settings, with a extremely fast screen 

[79wjd]

13 minutes ago, sambarr said:

"Is Ryzen 1700x+ low latency memory better than 7700k at pure gaming?"

 

Why talk about 7th gen though? No one in their right mind will buy a 7th gen i7 without a significant discount at this time of year. 8400/8600k/8700k is where it's at. 

The reason a lot of people look towards Skylake/Kaby Lake is because Coffee Lake is still rare to find at reasonable prices, and there is more data regarding Sky/Kaby Lake around -- since IPC hasn't changed they are a good lower bound for Coffee Lake. 

[MyName13]

12 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

That's an R5 1600 @4GHz to be precise. Also, 720p performance? Really? Show me one person buying one of those CPUs and still genuinely gaming at 720p.

1080p: a negligible difference between the two, not noticeable unless your GPU is a 1080Ti and you're playing at 165Hz

1440p: again, identical performance

I believe we can easily classify this as similar gaming performance varying from game to game in favor of one or the other... Also, watch the end of that video, Steve tells the verdict in two different ways with both being actually valid.

Of course! We were only debunking a statement saying that an i7-7700K is faster in any gaming scenario That's simply not true because there are some games in which an R7 1700X with fast RAM would be faster

Where is r5 1600 at stock?Where are those games that run better on r7?What's the point of gpu bound benchmarks?25-30% difference is huge and tells a lot about computational power and speed of i5, a cpu that runs at far lower clock rate.

 

5 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

the 4 core i7 chips will suffer from the same problems that the i5s are starting to suffer, not enough threads, right now not much is being done on the cpu, but with more powerful cpus on the market, devs will start using more cpu perf, meaning those cpus that are now having great perf but are at 100% already will suffer a lot more than the cpus that at first sight seem slower but have more cores and right now have much lower usage.

also using low res to determine future perf with faster cards doesnt work, its been proven in the past, 

so ignore 720p results and even 1080 low, unless you want to run at those resolutions and settings, with a extremely fast screen 

Wait for multicore optimisation™ - bulldozer owners 2012

 

Wait for multi core optimisations even though consoles already have 8 cores and have far far far far weaker cores so PC CPUs can therefore beat consoles with even 2-4 cores™ - 2017

[Adh]

Ok let me be more clear,

It is not about buying a new 7700k,

It's not about multitusking about gaming.

The scenario is,

No gpu bottleneck at all, most suitable steup for both gpu. 5ghz should be a sweed stable clockspeed for 7700k in average.

3.9/4ghz for ryzen.

Does ryzen +low latency gives you same fps (5% worse is considered as "same")/better performance than 7700k? Its not about if some games performs better with ryzen, it is about "will ryzen give you same performance as 7700k in all games?" (except any highly intel favorable games (if they exist, I have no idea.)

[sambarr]

1 minute ago, Adh said:

Ok let me be more clear,

It is not about buying a new 7700k,

It's not about multitusking about gaming.

The scenario is,

No gpu bottleneck at all, most suitable steup for both gpu. 5ghz should be a sweed stable clockspeed for 7700k in average.

3.9/4ghz for ryzen.

Does ryzen +low latency gives you same fps (5% worse is considered as "same")/better performance than 7700k? Its not about if some games performs better with ryzen, it is about "will ryzen give you same performance as 7700k in all games?" (except any highly intel favorable games (if they exist, I have no idea.)

Yes, you're getting pretty much parity there between the two platforms.

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, Adh said:

Ok let me be more clear,

It is not about buying a new 7700k,

It's not about multitusking about gaming.

The scenario is,

No gpu bottleneck at all, most suitable steup for both gpu. 5ghz should be a sweed stable clockspeed for 7700k in average.

3.9/4ghz for ryzen.

Does ryzen +low latency gives you same fps (5% worse is considered as "same")/better performance than 7700k? Its not about if some games performs better with ryzen, it is about "will ryzen give you same performance as 7700k in all games?" (except any highly intel favorable games (if they exist, I have no idea.)

I'd say that the performance will be similar, but if you're strictly gaming then the 7700K is faster. Though it depends on the resolution because at 1440p and higher, they should perform around equal.

4 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Where is r5 1600 at stock?Where are those games that run better on r7?What's the point of gpu bound benchmarks?25-30% difference is huge and tells a lot about computational power and speed of i5, a cpu that runs at far lower clock rate.

What's the point of stock R5 1600 benchmarks if you can OC it to 3,8-4GHz under even a stock cooler? An i5-8400 is a great chip, but until lower-end B and H chipsets release in early 2018, I'd recommend the R5 1600 for now.
Games that run better on R7? Civilization VI for example.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, Adh said:

It is not about buying a new 7700k,

Thank goodness!

3 minutes ago, Adh said:

Does ryzen +low latency gives you same fps (5% worse is considered as "same")/better performance than 7700k? Its not about if some games performs better with ryzen, it is about "will ryzen give you same performance as 7700k in all games?" (except any highly intel favorable games (if they exist, I have no idea.)

You need to find a 1080 Ti + X CPU benchmark as the Vega is shown to have better threading support for Ryzen over Intel (whether AMD intended or not, I'm not going to debate) while the 64 is only as fast as a 1080. The 720 scores show the difference in games that exist now, but won't indicate any future releases. Game engines ask for cores (physical cores) and your OS will add HT/SMT cores to schedule logical cores for the physical cores (if a game uses four cores, an i7 and R7 will both provide eight logical cores). Whether those logical cores are beneficial depends on the title as some lose performance while others gain a few percent and others more than 25% and higher. 

[Adh]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I'd say that the performance will be similar, but if you're strictly gaming then the 7700K is faster. Though it depends on the resolution because at 1440p and higher, they should perform around equal.

What's the point of stock R5 1600 benchmarks if you can OC it to 3,8-4GHz under even a stock cooler? An i5-8400 is a great chip, but until lower-end B and H chipsets release in early 2018, I'd recommend the R5 1600 for now.
Games that run better on R7? Civilization VI for example.

isnt 1440p an GPU bottleneck scenario?