-
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.
AMD THREADRIPPER VS INTEL SKYLAKE X
- Thread starter faceman123
- Start date
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,629
AMD have esstentially rocked the cpu market. great news for intel fan boys, AMD have brung 8 core cpus to mainstream. only a while ago Intel's top processor was the 5960x. Im looking beyond the fps, its about the ethics and horriblr practices intel have got away with. #nomorequads
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,629
People don't tend to like being taken advantage of.
It's been made clear that if a much smaller company like AMD can release a product virtually on par with It's competition for much less, then perhaps Intel have been taking the mick.
It's good for us though.
It's been made clear that if a much smaller company like AMD can release a product virtually on par with It's competition for much less, then perhaps Intel have been taking the mick.
It's good for us though.
Kind of a useless review, using a 970 he was bottle necked in almost every game he tested thus giving the same results. He seems a bit of a noob tbh.
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,629
Wonder if there will be specials AIO cooler mojunts for ryzen
How you do explain then the performance of the i7 7700K when streaming CIV 6. Let alone the performance of that CPU on Civ6 alone, which is a game that is using as many threads as available and isn't limited to 4 like BF1!!!!
If it was bottlenecked by the 970, surely ALL the scores were going to be the same on all games!!!!!
I said almost every game
I'm not doubting the power of ryzen. I have one check my Sig! It's just this review was weak IMO
I said almost every game
I'm not doubting the power of ryzen. I have one check my Sig! It's just this review was weak IMO
The biggest issue is we have only 1-2 reviews using AMD cards (one with CF). And on those reviews the Ryzen CPUs performed better or within 1 fps to the 7700K @5Ghz, even the 1600X.
And the 480/580 CF review was trashing the GTX1080 on both CPUs by miles, on gameworks game
The biggest issue is we have only 1-2 reviews using AMD cards (one with CF). And on those reviews the Ryzen CPUs performed better or within 1 fps to the 7700K @5Ghz, even the 1600X.
And the 480/580 CF review was trashing the GTX1080 on both CPUs by miles, on gameworks game
so you're telling me 400w+ of two gpus manages to beat one single 200w gpu in a handful of selected titles that actually scale well in crossfire?
not to mention that two rx580s actually cost more than a 1080....
anyway, the reason every amd you review is within 1% of Intel is because it's gpu bound, in most games that have average scaling of 70%ish you're only talking GTX 1070 levels of performance.
that's why when paid with a titan/ TI we see the 7700k pull far ahead.
meaning with Volta next year, the gtx 2070 will show this big performance difference between Intel and ryzen (because it should be as quick as a 1080ti) and the 2080/titan will the exact same issue, probably with a larger performance gap.
yeah, utterly worthless review, look at how according to his numbers the 7700k is barely faster than the i3, intact so is ryzen.
so does that mean the i3 is as good as gaming as ryzen?
we *should* be seeing a clear performance difference between the i3/5/7 and yet even the i5/7 are neck and neck.
Except were not really seeing that. In some games it does but in a lot it doesn't they are quite close, close enough that it in real world gaming you will never notice it.
Again perhaps i'm just not getting it but we already see the 7700k almost fully saturated with the more core ryzens having much more left in the tank. Perhaps you're putting too much emphasis on fps figures whilst missing out on the larger picture.
In your opinion why do you think Intel is going 6 core with Cannon Lake if 4 cores are all you need? Surely as GPU's continue to get more powerful, they'll need more and more grunt to power them. Another thing to take in is those lucky people using 1080ti's and more, are unlikely to be gaming at 720/1080p, would you not agree?
being pedantic, it's coffeelake bringing 6 cores to mainstream not cannon lake
we've all seen enough benchmarks to know that the 7700k is indeed faster than the 1700 in gaming, now it's not so much the resolution but the draw calls, what I mean is
figuratively speaking, if you had a rx580 at 1080p, and a 1080ti at 1440p, say for example this particular managed 100fps at 1080p on the rx580, and 100fps on the 1080ti for arguments sake.
this means that the cpu would be under the same amount of stress, because it's trying to send the same amount of draw calls for all the frames.
so, for example when I play rainbow six siege I run low settings on my 3440x1440p acer x34a, so I can get 200fps and use fast sync even paired with my titan XP.
as fps goes up, so does the draw calls. so, if you're someone (like me) that upgrades gpus regularly enough to use high refresh rates at high resolutions, then you're being held back by ryzen as it can't keep up with the draw calls.
I mean, you don't have to be playing at 1080p, I'm at 3440x1440 which is halfway between 1440p and 4k, and it still made a difference, give it what? another year when we have 50%+ more gpu power and we'll be pushing 144+ 1440p easily, intact 4k/144 monitors are coming this year.
Intel is going 6 cores as (eventually ) they will be more useful, we've already see that core count doesn't actually improve performance currently, anandtech had some benchmarks showing that a 6900k at 4.4ghz was no better in any game vs a 6700k at 4.4ghz, the extra cores did not improve performance one bit.
now in the future we will eventually see more cores used, BUT there's two cavets.
1. this process is going to be very slow, it's not at all easily to parrallize multiple threads in gaming, just because you see usage across a core does not mean it's parrallisied properly.
for example, take battlefield 1, technically speaking the engine and gamecan scale across 32 threads, but if you took a 4ghz 7600k against a 2ghz xeon 16 core which would be faster? the 7600k of course. because even with all those threads to try and balance the load, IPC and clock speed still matter for the *main* thread.
arma 3 is a perfect example showing a worst case scenario, see you'll actually see usage across 4 odd threads in the game, yet it's hugely bottlenecked by 1, because even though 4 threads are used, 1 thread in particular is used for the ballistics and caluclations, since they're tied together and physically can't be put on separate threads.
6 cores will probably be more useful in a year or two, but you still need high clock speeds and ipc.
Ok a lot of that is lost on me. I still don't see where your finding the 7700k to be so far ahead. but it's pointless going around in circles. Ive just finished watching the Benchmarks - What to trust video by adored tv I think a lot of the perception that the 7700k being so far ahead is sort of explained by him.
Nevermind horses for courses is think something like the 1700 is a better all round CPU than the 7700K, but that is just my opinion.
Nevermind horses for courses is think something like the 1700 is a better all round CPU than the 7700K, but that is just my opinion.
Nothing he says has any resemblance to reality....
Since he's started posting all he has done is talk down AMD and talk up Intel, that's his purpose here.
That's why he's on my ignore list.
On thing that I have noticed is when the GPU is the bottleneck is when ryzen pulls ahead. A sign on things to come maybe?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,154
- Location
- South Wales
Simple fact of the matter is that 6 cores are coming to mainstream, so it's happening now.. Intel upping their cores past 4 means that more developers will start to make stuff utilizing more threads, it's that simple IMO.
Be interesting to see how game developers use those extra cores - be nice to see things like AI, physics and sound enhanced.
The problem with games and threading is that by their nature a good bit of the main game loop is highly serial and will always depend on 1 or 2 cores with very high tick rates. Some game developers seem to have started just spawning everything as threads even when some will essentially stall waiting on others, etc. which results in some rather sub optimal results with some DX12 engines recently
A lot of other applications that are easier to thread have been increasingly threaded even when the systems running them have a lot less cores/threads than the threads spawned. The other issue is that many of the intrinsic libraries are limited in how thread safe they are - we still need to see quite a bit of ground made up in the development environments themselves as well.
AMD have not produced a CPU that can compete with Intel for the past few years.
So Intel can charge what ever they like its all about profit $$$$$$, AMD would do the same if it was the other way round.
Hopefully AMD can keep this up and keep prices stable or even make Intel lower their prices.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,006
- Location
- Billericay, UK
IMO it's more about creating a larger user base of PC's with more processing cores which in turn should encourage software developers to write and develop games and applications that can take advantage of those extra resources. For far to long thanks to the lack of competition and Intel stiffing the market mainstream PC users have been stuck with 4 cores or 4 cores with hyperthreading (I think the Q6600 was the first ever mainstream quad core Intel chip which was released over 10 years ago), it's been going on for so long now we've fell into haze and accepted that 4 cores is as good as it gets for most of us and we don't need more.
Once example I can think off is a game like Total War were the large battles you can generate require a beastly PC to run smoothly. One of the reasons why it's so demanding is the huge processing requirements for AI and pathfinding. Currently Creative Assembly use a technique called block AI which gives every cohort/infantry group it's own AI algorithms as it's simply to demanding to give it each individual unit it's own AI. Perhaps this could all change now 8 core systems will be more prevalent in the next few years.