1800X To 8700 K 1440P Gaming ?

[gavinh87]

@gavinh87 His GPU score is 30% 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.

See my links, GPU clocks are both the same. https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13938597/fs/13418487#
Also, see the COD bench. The 1800x is holding back a 1080ti.

 

[humbug]

See my links, GPU clocks are both the same. https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13938597/fs/13418487#
Also, see the COD bench. The 1800x is holding back a 1080ti.

Edited my Post, his Graphics score is 40% higher, not 30.

3DMark reports the clocks it finds as its scanning the system just before it launches the benchmark, its easy to MSI After Burner set 5% lower clocks when the benchmark starts.

Normally i'm not that cynical Gavin but i came from an Intel CPU on a GTX 1070 to a Ryzen CPU on the same GTX 1070 and i don't recognize your constant putting down of Ryzen, its your almost desperate and tireless continuation of that which makes me even more suspicious.

 

[gavinh87]

Edited my Post, his Graphics score is 40% higher, not 30.

3DMark reports the clocks it finds as its scanning the system just before it launches the benchmark, its easy to MSI After Burner set 5% lower clocks when the benchmark starts.

Normally i'm not that cynical Gavin but i came from an Intel CPU on a GTX 1070 to a Ryzen CPU on the same GTX 1070 and i don't recognize your constant putting down of Ryzen, its your almost desperate and tireless continuation of that which makes me even more suspicious.

Haha so you think I fudged the 3dmark test? Give me more credit than that man.
You came from a 4core from 2014, I'm not really that surprised that you say ryzen is better. But better or equal to a 8700k in gaming it is not.
I wouldn't call it putting down, its more telling the truth = as in it cannot extract the full power from a 1080ti. I am worried for ryzen with the next nvidia GPU's

Do you also suspect the 1000's of other 3dmark scores that fall right in line with my own as being tampered with?

 

[sandys]

AMD released half unfinished garbage with Ryzen and it took a while to sort BIOS crap out and get memory working etc, probably has more to do with it, Ryzen was a painful experience, works well now but it's not something I would recommend to a friend unless I know they are like me and like to tinker.

 

[gavinh87]

AMD released half unfinished garbage with Ryzen and it took a while to sort BIOS crap out and get memory working etc, probably has more to do with it, Ryzen was a painful experience, works well now but it's not something I would recommend to a friend unless I know they are like me and like to tinker.

My own test that I compared show the dates, lates bios /latest AGESA 1.0.0.6 which was hailed as the holy grail by many.
Worth nothing that ryzen was at 3.9/3466 CL14 ram. It was not gimped in any way.

I don't know what else to say, some people have their fingers in their ears.

 

[sandys]

Well same here really as for gaming mine should be slower than an a equivalent clocked Ryzen 7 due to cross die latencies inherent in the way TRs are built.

 

[humbug]

Haha so you think I fudged the 3dmark test? Give me more credit than that man.
You came from a 4core from 2014, I'm not really that surprised that you say ryzen is better. But better or equal to a 8700k in gaming it is not.
I wouldn't call it putting down, its more telling the truth = as in it cannot extract the full power from a 1080ti. I am worried for ryzen with the next nvidia GPU's

Do you also suspect the 1000's of other 3dmark scores that fall right in line with my own as being tampered with?

2016 Gavin, stop exaggerating it was a 5'th Gen Intel Core series, not that makes any difference your argument is defunct.

If Ryzen was bottlenecking your system explain how Sandys with a Ryzen system got a 40% higher score than you did on your Intel system?

You've obviously made that up.

 

[james_2k]

The fun never ends. (If you have an intel chip)

 

[gavinh87]

2016 Gavin, stop exaggerating it was a 5'th Gen Intel Core series, not that makes any difference your argument is defunct.

If Ryzen was bottlenecking your system explain how Sandys with a Ryzen system got a 40% higher score than you did on your Intel system?

You've obviously made that up.

Combined test. Where both CPU and GPU are used. In GPU test then obviously it wins.
I can show many many cases where ryzen cannot push a ti to its max.

 

[iakhtar]

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/2616709/spy/2711397/spy/2751977#

Ryzen seems to be driving 2x1080ti's just fine compared to the 8700k on timespy

 

[humbug]

Combined test. Where both CPU and GPU are used. In GPU test then obviously it wins.
I can show many many cases where ryzen cannot push a ti to its max.

Really? that's your argument?

Combined with Physics, your 8700K + GTX 1070 is also bottlenecked in that run because it combines the Physics test and the graphics test, of course the physics drags down the GPU in both and yes given the Physics test in 3DMark doesn't scale beyond 16 threads then of course your 12 thread 5Ghz CPU will do better than his 4Ghz using 16 threads, if 3DMark's Physics test scaled to 32 threads then Sandys combined score would have been twice yours, but it doesn't.

The GPU its self is not bottlenecked, he scored 40% higher than you in the GPU test.

 

[gavinh87]

Really? that's your argument?

Combined with Physics, your 8700K + GTX 1070 is also bottlenecked in that run because it combines the Physics test and the graphics test, of course the physics drags down the GPU in both and yes given the Physics test in 3DMark doesn't scale beyond 16 threads then of course your 12 thread 5Ghz CPU will do better than his 4Ghz using 16 threads, if 3DMark's Physics test scaled to 32 threads then Sandys combined score would have been twice yours, but it doesn't.

The GPU its self is not bottlenecked, he scored 40% higher than you in the GPU test.

Then explain other benchmarks, when even at 1440p the 8700k pulls ahead.
We shall see when nvidia releases its next flagship just how behind ryzen is.

 

[humbug]

Then explain other benchmarks, when even at 1440p the 8700k pulls ahead.
We shall see when nvidia releases its next flagship just how behind ryzen is.

No one is disputing the 8700K is the best gaming CPU, but you are banging on as if it cannot drive a GTX 1070, it can drive a GTX 1080TI just fine and given that clock for clock the gaming performance difference between the Ryzen 1600 and 1800X is 0 you're saving £200 vs the 8700K in the process, again you might only get 170 FPS vs 200 but that's still better than 140 on an 8700K + 1080 vs Ryzen 1600 + 1080TI.

Given the AM4 motherboard will support Ryzen upto Gen 3 or newer the 1600 can also be swapped out for its replacement and you still end up spending less money than if you had bought an 8700K.

 

[gavinh87]

No one is disputing the 8700K is the best gaming CPU, but you are banging on as if it cannot drive a GTX 1070, it can drive a GTX 1080TI just fine and given that clock for clock the gaming performance difference between the Ryzen 1600 and 1800X is 0 you're saving £200 vs the 8700K in the process, again you might only get 170 FPS vs 200 but that's still better than 140 on an 8700K + 1080 vs Ryzen 1600 + 1080TI.

Given the AM4 motherboard will support Ryzen upto Gen 3 or newer the 1600 can also be swapped out for its replacement and you still end up spending less money than if you had bought an 8700K.

I've already said this. A GPU will bring a greater increase but if I had spent £700+ on a GPU I'd want to know I could use it to its full potential in every game I throw at it.

"Given the AM4 motherboard will support Ryzen upto Gen 3 or newer the 1600 can also be swapped out for its replacement and you still end up spending less money than if you had bought an 8700K"

Indeed, but you have put up with lower performance for god knows how long (not worked out dates) then gone to the hassle of changing CPU when you could have just got the best performance in the first place on the blue team.

 

[james_2k]

Meh. They are all cheap cpus. I personally think more than six cores is the sweet spot for gaming going forward. Around 8 or 10

 

[gavinh87]

Meh. They are all cheap cpus. I personally think more than six cores is the sweet spot for gaming going forward. Around 8 or 10

But you need the clockspeed to go with it. 5ghz+ with 16threads would be ideal but I think thats a long way off in both camps.

 

[james_2k]

Not really, even mine does two threads at 5 two at 4.9 and 16 at 4.8. With some serious 110gb/s bandwidth. And the new 8 core coming out should be a good clocker too

 

[DragonQ]

I have, and as I've said there are differences even with a 1070. I'd hate to think of the differences with next years GPU's.

As a side note, the GPU market will stagnate just like the CPU market did with a pseudo-monopoly. There is even talk of a Pascal refresh being the next batch of nVidia GPUs, rather than a new architecture, even though it's been nearly 2 years since they were released.

 

[humbug]

I've already said this. A GPU will bring a greater increase but if I had spent £700+ on a GPU I'd want to know I could use it to its full potential in every game I throw at it.

"Given the AM4 motherboard will support Ryzen upto Gen 3 or newer the 1600 can also be swapped out for its replacement and you still end up spending less money than if you had bought an 8700K"

Indeed, but you have put up with lower performance for god knows how long (not worked out dates) then gone to the hassle of changing CPU when you could have just got the best performance in the first place on the blue team.

Because its cheap and easy, when Ryzen 2 hits it will cost me about £60/£70 to swap my 1600 for a 2600, all i need to do is take the old CPU out of my motherboard and put the new one in, the 1600 goes on the members market, i get most of my money back.

With Intel that will cost you £200 at least because of the depreciation and you have to buy a new Motherboard..

 

[james_2k]

But you will still have an amd chip. So no further forward really