• 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

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.

developers have been working primailry with 8 core systems since the ps4/xbone release, and nothing's changed.

even in games that are considered the best multi threaded titles like battlefield 1 on frostbite and doom on id tech 6 still prefer 4 faster cores over 8 slower cores. ipc and clock speed is and always will be king in gaming
 
developers have been working primailry with 8 core systems since the ps4/xbone release, and nothing's changed.

even in games that are considered the best multi threaded titles like battlefield 1 on frostbite and doom on id tech 6 still prefer 4 faster cores over 8 slower cores. ipc and clock speed is and always will be king in gaming

But there's not the incentive to optimise for more then 4 cores on a PC due to the few number of PC gamers with better then a quad core CPU. Also you can't just port a game that's on a PS4/Xb1 that may or may not use more then 4 cores and expect it to work on the PC in the same way, consoles have their own API's which are close to metal and allow very specific optimisations to take place which you just don't get on the PC. Doom and BF4 are showing the way but it's not perfect, as more and more of us move to 6 and 8 core based setups then you will see software catching up.
 
even in games that are considered the best multi threaded titles like battlefield 1 on frostbite and doom on id tech 6 still prefer 4 faster cores over 8 slower cores. ipc and clock speed is and always will be king in gaming

I don't think that's 100% true with BF1, especially large multiplayer maps it struggles with a 7700K.
 
developers have been working primailry with 8 core systems since the ps4/xbone release, and nothing's changed.

even in games that are considered the best multi threaded titles like battlefield 1 on frostbite and doom on id tech 6 still prefer 4 faster cores over 8 slower cores. ipc and clock speed is and always will be king in gaming

That depends, the problem is almost all reviewers use nVidia GPU's to review these CPU's for gaming performance, which is completely understandable given AMD lack of high performance GPU's at this time.

The problem is nVidia's DX12 performance is abysmal with Ryzen CPU's, the DX11 performance is as good as it is with Intel but something about nVidia's driver doesn't like or understand the Ryzen architecture, nVidia's A-Synchronous Compute is software based, which may well explain it, the code is optimised for Intel CPU's but because Ryzen is new, nVidia need's to update the code to add the Ryzen architecture.

You can clearly see that difference when you compare AMD's hardware based A-Synchronous Compute GPU's to nVidia's software based A-Synchronous Compute GPU's in a DX12 title like Rise of the Tombraider.

As you can see here in DX11 the performance of the 3.7Ghz 1800X is the same as the 4.2Ghz 7700K, but on the nVidia GPU the DX12 performance is very much lower, DX12 performance on the AMD GPU's is the same on the 1800X as it is on the 7700K.
And you can't call that a GPU bottleneck as the performance in both DX11 and DX12 is higher on the RX 480 CF than it is on the GTX 1070.

A lot of the so called performance issues are down to nVidia's drivers more than the CPU, the CPU its self with a marginally higher IPC than Intel Broadwell (X99) is solid.

RX_480.png


1070.png


 
I don't think that's 100% true with BF1, especially large multiplayer maps it struggles with a 7700K.

even in 64 multiplayer my 7700k at 5ghz was faster and smoother than my 1800x at 4ghz.

But there's not the incentive to optimise for more then 4 cores on a PC due to the few number of PC gamers with better then a quad core CPU. Also you can't just port a game that's on a PS4/Xb1 that may or may not use more then 4 cores and expect it to work on the PC in the same way, consoles have their own API's which are close to metal and allow very specific optimisations to take place which you just don't get on the PC. Doom and BF4 are showing the way but it's not perfect, as more and more of us move to 6 and 8 core based setups then you will see software catching up.

by that metric we won't see 6+ cores necessary for the next decade, by far the majority of gamers are on dual core Pentium/i3s and won't have more than 2 cores for many years to come.
 
even in 64 multiplayer my 7700k at 5ghz was faster and smoother than my 1800x at 4ghz.

How can it be smooth when all your threads look like this? it may not look like that all the time but i have no doubt in area's its pretty stuttery.

A lot of reviewers have also reported much smoother gaming on the Ryzen system than on the 7700K.

To be frank i don't believe you, IMO this is just part of your promoting Intel.

Cr_M80t4.png
 
by that metric we won't see 6+ cores necessary for the next decade, by far the majority of gamers are on dual core Pentium/i3s and won't have more than 2 cores for many years to come.

The majority of my time working with computers, it has been software development that has driven hardware requirements. The likes of Microsoft have not tailored their latest releases based on the limitations of the average current PC user. They have released programs which users have had to upgrade their hardware to suit if they want the full experience.
 
even in 64 multiplayer my 7700k at 5ghz was faster and smoother than my 1800x at 4ghz.

I'm not convinced! I've seen reports on here about people saying the 7700K stutters on BF1 on 64 player maps.

I was just about to post the above, even on my 6850K @ 4.5Ghz it stutters in places.

This isn't Scone haven't some weird joke is it?
 
The problem is nVidia's DX12 performance is abysmal with Ryzen CPU's, the DX11 performance is as good as it is with Intel but something about nVidia's driver doesn't like or understand the Ryzen architecture, nVidia's A-Synchronous Compute is software based, which may well explain it, the code is optimised for Intel CPU's but because Ryzen is new, nVidia need's to update the code to add the Ryzen architecture.

Can't rule out Intel specific optimisations, but they don't usually have that level of impact alone, but as I said before if you look at thread utilisation in these scenarios the bottleneck is the marshalling thread which is far more suggestive that either something in the Ryzen architecture isn't as well suited to that kind of work as Intel's or Ryzen is simply lacking IPC in the context of whatever that thread is doing for whatever reason which might be unregulated CPU context based switching which it might be possible to regulate to avoid the latency hit (it also tends to indicate nVidia are doing a lot more of the scheduling for rendering stuff in software than AMD but that isn't really surprising).

I'm not convinced! I've seen reports on here about people saying the 7700K stutters on BF1 on 64 player maps.

I was just about to post the above, even on my 6850K @ 4.5Ghz it stutters in places.

This isn't Scone haven't some weird joke is it?

Have you done the core unparking thing? that makes a huge difference on my i7 systems in terms of smoothness and performance in the frostbite engine (BF4, BF1, etc.) and removes all stutter in demanding 64 player scenarios. (EDIT: Though if you are on Windows 10 I don't think it is required).
 
Last edited:
Can't rule out Intel specific optimisations, but they don't usually have that level of impact alone, but as I said before if you look at thread utilisation in these scenarios the bottleneck is the marshalling thread which is far more suggestive that either something in the Ryzen architecture isn't as well suited to that kind of work as Intel's or Ryzen is simply lacking IPC in the context of whatever that thread is doing for whatever reason which might be unregulated CPU context based switching which it might be possible to regulate to avoid the latency hit (it also tends to indicate nVidia are doing a lot more of the scheduling for rendering stuff in software than AMD but that isn't really surprising).

You say its IPC, (Instructions per clock) but how then do you explain how the 3.7Ghz 1800X is able to match the 4.2Ghz 7700K in DX11? actually the 1800X beats the 7700K in DX11 by 2% on the RX480 CF system.
 
Have you done the core unparking thing? that makes a huge difference on my i7 systems in terms of smoothness and performance in the frostbite engine (BF4, BF1, etc.) and removes all stutter in demanding 64 player scenarios.

I'll be honest I haven't, i'll give it a test. I know streaming with that CPU and it seems to fall flat on its face. :(:p
 
I'll be honest I haven't, i'll give it a test. I know streaming with that CPU and it seems to fall flat on its face. :(:p

I just remembered that if you are using Windows 10 I don't think its required - on older OSes like 7 it can make a huge difference.

You say its IPC, (Instructions per clock) but how then do you explain how the 3.7Ghz 1800X is able to match the 4.2Ghz 7700K in DX11? actually the 1800X beats the 7700K in DX11 by 2%.

Any given programming loop can tick over at different rates depending on what exact instructions it is using - the layout of some instructions might encounter different conditions to others so you can get mixed results for the effective "IPC" between different sets of code depending on CPU architecture - 2 CPUs that have identical IPC in a scenario using a straight set of simple instructions might show very different results when you introduce a scenario involving branching, etc.
 
You say its IPC, (Instructions per clock) but how then do you explain how the 3.7Ghz 1800X is able to match the 4.2Ghz 7700K in DX11? actually the 1800X beats the 7700K in DX11 by 2% on the RX480 CF system.

Oh, while you're thinking about that, actually explain the huge just in performance to match the 7700K when switching to the RX480 CF setup.
 
even in 64 multiplayer my 7700k at 5ghz was faster and smoother than my 1800x at 4ghz.

....

You are the first (and only) person I have seen to ever say that a 7700k is smoother in BF1. What were your frame-times for the systems? Given how intensive BF1 is on the CPU I am surprised that it is 'smoother' given it will hit 100% usage at certain points (multiplayer, full 64 player server).
 
You are the first (and only) person I have seen to ever say that a 7700k is smoother in BF1. What were your frame-times for the systems? Given how intensive BF1 is on the CPU I am surprised that it is 'smoother' given it will hit 100% usage at certain points (multiplayer, full 64 player server).

He's full of it mate. All his posts are anti AMD lol.
 
You are the first (and only) person I have seen to ever say that a 7700k is smoother in BF1. What were your frame-times for the systems? Given how intensive BF1 is on the CPU I am surprised that it is 'smoother' given it will hit 100% usage at certain points (multiplayer, full 64 player server).

never hit 100% usage oddly enough.

7700k at 5.1ghz with 3600mhz 16gb, think timings are around cl14 iirc?

using a titan Xp, at 2088mhz with +600 on the memory, using 3440x1440 'medium settings' I hover around 200fps (100hz monitor and use fastsync so need 2x refresh rate fps)
 
He's full of it mate. All his posts are anti AMD lol.


I've had a guy tell me in a single threaded game like arma 3 their 1800x is faster than their 6700k at 4.8ghz, which be honest. we know is completely incorrect....


anyway, interesting benchmarks here

https://youtu.be/Qj5MtsSZJIk

even with just a 1080 the 7700k commands a good 15-20% lead over the 1600, which has 2 more cores, even in games that are able to take use of more than 8 threads.

what's interesting, is the rising storm benchmark which is 2x as fast on the 7700k as the ryzen.

this is something that can be observed in any single/dual threaded game, for example arma 3, dayz and fallout 4.

all of these games favour a single core with high clock speed and high ipc, now, theoeticially the ryzen 'should' be what? 35-40% slower? in the single core, with 1.2ghz less clock speed and 10% odd less ipc.

but it's not even that, it's half as fast in these titles, and I can't see how it's optimizations as it's not like cross ccx communication issues or anything like in tomb raider where all threads were used but not performing correctly, this is a single core vs core comparison.
 
I've had a guy tell me in a single threaded game like arma 3 their 1800x is faster than their 6700k at 4.8ghz, which be honest. we know is completely incorrect....


anyway, interesting benchmarks here

https://youtu.be/Qj5MtsSZJIk

even with just a 1080 the 7700k commands a good 15-20% lead over the 1600, which has 2 more cores, even in games that are able to take use of more than 8 threads.

what's interesting, is the rising storm benchmark which is 2x as fast on the 7700k as the ryzen.

this is something that can be observed in any single/dual threaded game, for example arma 3, dayz and fallout 4.

all of these games favour a single core with high clock speed and high ipc, now, theoeticially the ryzen 'should' be what? 35-40% slower? in the single core, with 1.2ghz less clock speed and 10% odd less ipc.

but it's not even that, it's half as fast in these titles, and I can't see how it's optimizations as it's not like cross ccx communication issues or anything like in tomb raider where all threads were used but not performing correctly, this is a single core vs core comparison.

So your argument is to use games from 2013 to show ryzen is poor.
Yet in newer games it keeps up with or even beats intels best gaming CPU at 5ghz. But that is a problem with the CPU and not the game engine right?
 
this is something that can be observed in any single/dual threaded game, for example arma 3, dayz and fallout 4.

So you hope to win by pointing towards games that notoriously use old single threaded poorly optomized engines.... riiiiight ok....

Troll status confirmed.

Id give it up now and leave it be, you have zero to no credibility left, dont make matters worse :(

you must be the only person in the history of ever to defend their point with such ludicrous claims against a whole load of evidence pointing otherwise :( i applaud your ignorance and stubbornness but your doing yourself no favours.
 
Back
Top Bottom