• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

1800X To 8700 K 1440P Gaming ?

bakes0310 said:
Interesting thread, so we established a 1080ti is wasted on ryzen due to bottleneck. Is that down to resolution op wants. Would that disappear if he had a 144hz monitor or a 4k?
Click to expand...

If at 144hz+ like myself then the differences can be seen even with a 1070. Albeit not as much.
When the next mid range GPU's release that are as quick as the 1080ti it would be wise to upgrade the CPU. The whole value idea behind ryzen then falls away imo.
 
for now, and the foreseeable future. 6 cores max needed for gaming imo. the consoles just aren't powerful enough to push development in that area.

only exception would be simulators etc, but even most of them, at time of writing use few cores.

go for the per core performance. (awaiting standard humbug reply:D)
 
1080Ti doesn't feel wasted on my Ryzen system far from it, the fact that I got massive performance 50-100% bumps by adding a second card tells me that much. Can't drive a 1080Ti, what twaddle.

Never in the history of gaming has a CPU really mattered for pushing pixels, sure you can't have an arse CPU but Ryzen is far from arse.
 
Just to help hammer home, I took a few minutes just to compile some info for frame rates with a 1080Ti using a 6700k and 8700k @ 1440p, now obviously there will be some ommisions in the data as the 6700 data will be over a year old and there will have been engine and driver optimisations in the case of some titles but even so you'll see a trend.

Future SLI is where the data from babletech was updated.

CPU gains you next to nowt, GPU is king, obviously as this in only 1440p SLI doesn't look amazing, still looks better than upgrading an alright CPU, at 4K where the CPU will be doing bugger all but waiting the extra GPU will come into its own.


cpu_vs_SLI.png
 
Last edited:
sandys said:
1080Ti doesn't feel wasted on my Ryzen system far from it, the fact that I got massive performance 50-100% bumps by adding a second card tells me that much. Can't drive a 1080Ti, what twaddle.

Never in the history of gaming has a CPU really mattered for pushing pixels, sure you can't have an arse CPU but Ryzen is far from arse.
Click to expand...

Don't talk sense, buy Intel, only Intel, even at the expense of GPU power.
 
Don't get me wrong if Intels platform was as good for the money I would have an Intel, it is a better CPU, fullstop, but i wanted all the IOs, lots of GPUs and I compromise on CPU to save dough as Ryzen is good enough.
 
james_2k said:
you have seen the light! the blue light
Click to expand...

:D

sandys said:
Don't get me wrong if Intels platform was as good for the money I would have an Intel, it is a better CPU, fullstop, but i wanted all the IOs, lots of GPUs and I compromise on CPU to save dough as Ryzen is good enough.
Click to expand...

Agreed, there is no getting away from it the 8700K is a faster gaming CPU but the difference between it and Ryzen is nothing like Intel's Shills would have people believe, its a very long way from a potato, its very fast in its own right capable of driving the best GPU's.

If your budget doesn't stretch to an 8700K + 1080TI dump the 8700K and get the Ryzen 1600, actually scratch that i'll go back to me original advice, wait for Ryzen 2.
 
And as I said if you just bought a decent GPU instead your GPU performance would have been 50% better with same crappy CPU :p ;)
 
Last edited:
sandys said:
And as I said if you just bought a decent GPU instead your GPU performance would have been 50% better with same CPU :p ;)
Click to expand...

Then where would that leave me in the future? Buy the next gen nvidia card and have it bottlenecked so I have to change CPU at the same time?
I bought the fastest gaming CPU available so I wouldn't have to worry about upgrading CPU in future, meanwhile ryzen guys will be upgrading their CPU + GPU together to avoid bottlenecks.
People talk about value for money but swapping out the CPU 3 times just to match the gaming performance that intel already has is a moot point.

*I'm talking strictly gaming, not other loads*

Then you get titles like this, and no matter how you spin it - that ryzen is holding the 1080ti back even at 1440P

 
sandys said:
Very few titles where it makes that much difference as shown in my sheet of CPU vs extra GPU, generally always better off with a more powerful GPU.

Comparing my Ryzen with your 8700K in firestrike, I'm ~800Mhz slower CPU so the Ryzen is properly weak in comparison but it can still push pixels with stronger GPU.

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13938597/fs/13850904#
Click to expand...

Yet in the combined test I'm scoring higher than your much, much more powerful GPU.
You are holding that ti back.
 
I'll take that because that bares no relevance in actual games, if only games would load the system such as that things would be much more clear cut, my CPU is 800Mhz slower, sure there will be the cases where I might hit lower mins but my machine will on the whole be faster than one with a similarly clocked 1070 and will continue to be such with the next raft GPUs, it has always been the case for games, history tells us that, nothing has changed greatly in game design to change the fact that GPU trumps CPU if you want good frame rates, of course having the best of everything would win out.

But with respect to what the actually post was about which is driving 1440p and 4k and choosing to switch CPU, it's not the wisest move over more GPU power, I've even backed it up with data from actual games rather than emotive feelings.
 
I expect I'll have to upgrade my 1700 before an i7 8700K owner would have to if I was to make use of GPU's at their highest. I knew that going in though.
Next GPU Die shrink and the GPU's of the time will start to show a larger difference between the CPU's as the lower core for core performance becomes stretched. This should just be common sense though.

But I was happy to support AMD so we'll see how things go.

The difference currently is nowhere near what Bulldozer/Piledriver versus Sandy+ was though.
 
sandys said:
I'll take that because that bares no relevance in actual games, if only games would load the system such as that things would be much more clear cut, my CPU is 800Mhz slower, sure there will be the cases where I might hit lower mins but my machine will on the whole be faster than one with a similarly clocked 1070 and will continue to be such with the next raft GPUs, it has always been the case for games, history tells us that, nothing has changed greatly in game design to change the fact that GPU trumps CPU if you want good frame rates, of course having the best of everything would win out.

But with respect to what the actually post was about which is driving 1440p and 4k and choosing to switch CPU, it's not the wisest move over more GPU power, I've even backed it up with data from actual games rather than emotive feelings.
Click to expand...

See the above COD WW2 benchmark. There are a few more where the 1800x falls behind. Yes even at 1440p
Would a better GPU bring better results? Sure. But I expect ryzen to start showing its weakness with the next bout of GPU's
 
@gavinh87 His GPU score is 40% higher than yours so clearly the difference in your graphics scores are nothing to do with Ryzen, its easy to get a difference like that by just running slightly slower clocks, given that Sandys got 30% higher score one wonders how you got such a low score on your Ryzen system. eh? ;)

BTW I have a 1070 too, there is no bottlenecking.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom