Are Ryzen CPU's bottlenecking high end GPU's?

[M300843499]

Speaking of GTX 1080 and upwards.

Single thread speed of a x58 Xeon at 4.4ghz matches a stock 1700X @ 3.8ghz, clearly 1700X has advantages though like memory throughput and a better platform overall.

 

Games are still heavily reliant on instructions per clock and more mhz.

 

A comment here represents denial and literally blaming intel for AMD under performing.

 

" Honestly you are very wrong. There is no bottleneck between Ryzen 7 1700x + 1080 Ti. Games are simply more optimized for Intel and that is a fact. All new games that come out, have almost similar and some even better FPS on both 1700x/1800x than i7 7700k because developers tend to maximize power of Ryzen for future gaming. Next time when you benchmark games take a look at the CPU usage of Ryzen vs Intel you will see that all new vs old games are using more of that % but still not as much as they should be. Wait until the end of the year, benchmark all new upcoming games, and see for yourself. "

 

Also tacking on top that devs will maximize the power of Ryzen, this is a fragile ego that needs to stand up for their purchase, we have all been here me included.

 

Once overclocked the intel pulls ahead to a silly amount this is not including the 8000 series which are faster with more cores.

 

There is another argument "no one who buys a 1080Ti games at anything less than 4K"

What about 1080P 240hz? 1440p 165hz?

 

 

[Himommies]

5 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

1080P 240hz? 1440p 165hz?

Unless you need to play the Witcher at 240 FPS,most games where you get benefit from playing at higher refresh rates are quite easy to run.

 

6 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

Games are simply more optimized for Intel and that is a fact.

It's not that.Not all games support DX12(a majority do) and that could be why.I bet it probaly has to do with the API and not the game tho

[M300843499]

3 minutes ago, Himommies said:

Unless you need to play the Witcher at 240 FPS,most games where you get benefit from playing at higher refresh rates are quite easy to run.

 

It's not that.Not all games support DX12(a majority do) and that could be why.I bet it probaly has to do with the API and not the game tho

Battlefield 1 at 240hz or 165hz would be nice.

It's not about competitive edge always, there is a massive difference the higher you go in refresh rate, less eye strain, more fluidity.

It's what everyone wants really, but a lot of people are in full denial.

[Himommies]

3 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

Battlefield 1 at 240hz or 165hz would be nice.

99 percent of people won't buy a 1080ti just for that tho. Genrally the games that have difficult to run graphics don't really have a large e-sports/competitive side,especially on PC.

 

3 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

It's not about competitive edge always, there is a massive difference the higher you go in refresh rate, less eye strain, more fluidity.

IDK,but i wouldn't pay 300-400 just for that,not to mention the price of high refresh rate monitiors

[M300843499]

Just now, Himommies said:

99 percent of people won't buy a 1080ti just for that tho. Genrally the games that have difficult to run graphics don't really have a large e-sports/competitive side,especially on PC.

 

IDK,but i wouldn't pay 300-400 just for that

I and many others will though since it's a bigger benefit than some crisper pixels.

Eye strain accounts for feeling tired faster, sore eyes, motion sickness.

 

[k.m.p]

There's a very oversimplified but correct way of answering this question: 

Will you see a significant difference between ryzen 2 and intel coffee lake?

Gtx 1070 or less: no

Gtx 1080: at 1080p, possibly, 1440p or 4k? no

Gtx 1080ti: 1080p: yes 1440p: possibly 4k: no

 

note I say possibly since it depends on how the game is cpu or gpu bound. 

intel cofee lake is faster for pure single threaded applications, but honestly in most cases the difference is not massive and ryzen 2 for a lot of people will be a better choice.

[M300843499]

1 minute ago, k.m.p said:

There's a very oversimplified but correct way of answering this question: 

Will you see a significant difference between ryzen 2 and intel coffee lake?

Gtx 1070 or less: no

Gtx 1080: at 1080p, possibly, 1440p or 4k? no

Gtx 1080ti: 1080p: yes 1440p: possibly 4k: no

 

note I say possibly since it depends on how the game is cpu or gpu bound. 

intel cofee lake is faster for pure single threaded applications, but honestly in most cases the difference is not massive and ryzen 2 for a lot of people will be a better choice.

I agree but remove the limitation of 60hz.. all changes.

[k.m.p]

Just now, M300843499 said:

I agree but remove the limitation of 60hz.. all changes.

I realized that I missed that, as soon as I posted lol, yes your right, at 60hz it wont make a difference.

[Himommies]

2 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

I and many others will though since it's a bigger benefit than some crisper pixels.

Eye strain accounts for feeling tired faster, sore eyes, motion sickness.

That's upwards of a 600-800 dollar extra price tag,just to reduce eyestrain.Unless your somehow incredibly wealthy,Just leaving that money in a bank to collect intrest for 20 years might be quite a bit better of a investment

[M300843499]

1 minute ago, Himommies said:

That's upwards of a 600-800 dollar extra price tag,just to reduce eyestrain.Unless your somehow incredibly wealthy,Just leaving that money in a bank to collect intrest for 20 years might be quite a bit better of a investment

If you are able to save 600-800 in a bank for that long then clearly money is not that big of an issue, just preferences on what you spend it on.

 

In the scenario here i assume people want the most for their experience without going daft.

[Himommies]

1 minute ago, M300843499 said:

If you are able to save 600-800 in a bank for that long then clearly money is not that big of an issue,

Some people have jobs you know

[flibberdipper]

14 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

Battlefield 1 at 240hz or 165hz would be nice.

It's not about competitive edge always, there is a massive difference the higher you go in refresh rate, less eye strain, more fluidity.

It's what everyone wants really, but a lot of people are in full denial.

I can whole-heartedly say I don't really want retardedly high refresh rates, so...

 

inb4 I'm in denial of wanting higher resolution instead of higher refresh rates

[M300843499]

Just now, Himommies said:

Some people have jobs you know

Yes i do too, a PC is a luxury, if money is that big of an issue, i would not be spending a penny on PC's. Priorities.

Someone who can save 600-800 for 20 years has never ran out of money, so thus no issues with money...

[iRileyx]

As someone who is supposed to wear glasses to stop my eyes straining, I kinda call BS on higher refresh rates stopping your eyes strain faster, i've never noticed a straining difference between 60 and 144, and thats with and without my glasses on.

 

And saying that maybe 144 to 260 or whatever would make a difference, it really wouldn't, at that point theres only a frametime difference of about 3-4ms.

[M300843499]

Just now, tmcclelland455 said:

I can whole-heartedly say I don't really want retardedly high refresh rates, so...

 

inb4 I'm in denial of wanting higher resolution instead of higher refresh rates

More towards those who say is there a difference?

 

I was you though until i went 120hz.

[M300843499]

Just now, RKRiley said:

As someone who is supposed to wear glasses to stop my eyes straining, I kinda call BS on higher refresh rates stopping your eyes strain faster, i've never noticed a straining difference between 60 and 144, and thats with and without my glasses on.

Bad vision is just bad vision though no offense meant.

Those with capable eyes are going to notice it being easier to view a high refresh panel vs a standard one.

[Himommies]

1 minute ago, M300843499 said:

Yes i do too, a PC is a luxury, if money is that big of an issue, i would not be spending a penny on PC's. Priorities.

Someone who can save 600-800 for 20 years has never ran out of money, so thus no issues with money...

not all people want to spend 800 dollars on items that aren't inherently that useful.I understand what your trying to say,but If is save up for 6 months and have 2k to spend on a PC,imm sure as fuck not putting a high refresh rate monitor and a 1080ti as my priority

[iRileyx]

1 minute ago, M300843499 said:

Bad vision is just bad vision though no offense meant.

Those with capable eyes are going to notice it being easier to view a high refresh panel vs a standard one.

Not really bad eyes cause i don't get eye strain from either, which is why i call BS lol.

[M300843499]

1 minute ago, Himommies said:

not all people want to spend 800 dollars on items that aren't inherently that useful.I understand what your trying to say,but If is save up for 6 months and have 2k to spend on a PC,imm sure as fuck not putting a high refresh rate monitor and a 1080ti as my priority

I have 2K to spend, well will have, i'm going 1440P G-Syn 165hz with a GTX 1080 and 8700K.

Hmm 2k in GBP is higher cost vs CND though.

[flibberdipper]

6 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

More towards those who say is there a difference?

 

I was you though until i went 120hz.

I genuinely don't care about higher refresh rates like, at all. 120Hz is nice but if I have the option of higher resolution and an IPS (or eventually OLED) panel, I'm going that route instead.

EDIT: and eye strain is a non-issue even though I have a screen in front of my face 12-14 hours a day, regardless of resolution or refresh rate.

[M300843499]

1 minute ago, RKRiley said:

Not really bad eyes cause i don't get eye strain from either, which is why i call BS lol.

Only way to show a difference is something that requires mad reflexes.

 

I cannot pull off accurate shots like this below 120hz this is a personal fact, if you can at 60hz i will send you a gold medal.

 

Video is meh was a test, but there are namely 2-3 shots that are impossible on 60hz for me.

 

 

 

 

 

[Himommies]

1 minute ago, M300843499 said:

I have 2K to spend, well will have, i'm going 1440P G-Syn 165hz with a GTX 1080 and 8700K.

Hmm 2k in GBP is higher cost vs CND though.

2k GBP has the buying power of 3k here.I can barely get a i7 with a 1080,much less a high refresh rate monitor and a ti

[stealth80]

I understand the point of this thread - we all know that Ryzen bottlenecks 1070ti+ 60FPS+ @ 1080P even a 8700k does to some extent 

 

Its also common knowledge that if you want high refresh gaming then 8700k is the best CPU.

 

The video maker does have a point though about optimisation - i don't mean for AMD or Intel - I mean more cores. I mentioned this in a thread last night:

 

Consider how long consoles have been running on 8 cores, what 6 years? Admittedly the vast majority of gamers are still on 4 core or 4 core/8 thread, however the last year has made 8 core/16 t CPU's much more main stream. Software devs need to start accounting for that, making games use the threads available to max advantage and there's a good reason for this (imo).

 

4790k Consider how much IPC/ghz have increased since say 4770k (4 generations, 2 tocks of the tick tock) didn't we see like increments of +3% IPC improvement max between releases aka 4770k > 4790k was a speed increase, 4790k to 6700k was like 2% and took a speed drop in available max o/c (I had 4.93ghz out of my 4790k) then we got like 1% IPC with 7700k and 5ghz achievable. 8700k brought what, 3%, 2 more cores and similar max overclock (barring the few binned/delids that do 5.3ghz).

So to estimate around 6% IPC and and around 400mhz extra speed.

 

Now think about GPU's in that same time frame - its roughly a 680GTX that was released around the time of 4770K, lets consider the speed increases of GPU's since then (I'm going to use NVidia X80's and Crysis 3 for simplicity - this is just for estimations not exact numbers etc)

 

680GTX = Baseline

780GTX = 25% faster in Crysis 3 than 680

980GTX = 20% faster in Crysis 3 than 780

1080 GTX = 40% faster in Crysis 3 than 980

1180GTX (rumoured) - 51% faster than 1080

 

My point is, come the 11XX series, no matter what CPU you have. its going to be bottlenecked, the advancements of CPU's cannot keep up with those of GPU's - this is what eventually increases the resolution standard - I remember when 1080P was the holy grail much like 4k is now. Obviously the 8700k will have the least impact of all current CPU's. but devs need to get to grips with available resources or we need to accept that 1440P will be the minimum required to get the best from our GPU's if theyre high end

 

imagine what its going to be like with an 1180ti 

[stealth80]

4 minutes ago, Himommies said:

2k GBP has the buying power of 3k here.I can barely get a i7 with a 1080,much less a high refresh rate monitor and a ti

It is do-able, I picked that rig out for him/her

[Himommies]

2 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

It is do-able, I picked that rig out for him/her

I am in canada