• 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

gavinh87 said:
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?
Click to expand...


the funny thing is, the only two entire gsme s ryzen even catches close to Intel in is battlefield and crysis 3, which literially are games nobody plays.

battlefield 1 in general is outnumbered hugely by games like

fallout 4
Skyrim
cs go
dota 2
elder scrolls online
the division
Titanfall 2
GTA V
rainbow six siege

just some examples of the most popular games currently, that all perform far better on intel.

hell some of those games like fallout and arma 3 the ryzen can't even maintain 60fps where the Intel is pushing 75+ that's terrible!

would you REALLY recommend to someone that plays half these games, to buy a ryzen to achieve lower fps, possibly 100% in select titles?

how would you feel recommending a ryzen setup and then that person asks why they keep dipping to below 50fps, when their friends Intel system maintains 70+?
 
SiDeards73 said:
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.
Click to expand...


my point is it's faildozer all over again, good multi threaded performance, terrible single threaded performance.
 
zornyan said:
the funny thing is, the only two entire gsme s ryzen even catches close to Intel in is battlefield and crysis 3, which literially are games nobody plays.

battlefield 1 in general is outnumbered hugely by games like

fallout 4
Skyrim
cs go
dota 2
elder scrolls online
the division
Titanfall 2
GTA V
rainbow six siege

just some examples of the most popular games currently, that all perform far better on intel.

hell some of those games like fallout and arma 3 the ryzen can't even maintain 60fps where the Intel is pushing 75+ that's terrible!

would you REALLY recommend to someone that plays half these games, to buy a ryzen to achieve lower fps, possibly 100% in select titles?

how would you feel recommending a ryzen setup and then that person asks why they keep dipping to below 50fps, when their friends Intel system maintains 70+?
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to entertain that list of games there because we all know thats not true.
"Literally nobody plays battlefield" I think you need to have a word with yourself.
 
SiDeards73 said:
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.
Click to expand...

One thing that concerns me a bit is the direction a lot of game developers seem to be going of late of lazy multi-threading where they basically just spawn a thread for everything causing lots of threads to basically sit there a lot waiting on other threads to complete, etc. in a very inefficient way and penalties for the amount of extra thread management that goes on - doesn't take the best advantage of either Intel or AMD CPUs but architectures like Ryzen tend to be slightly less penalised by it - same reason you see the Fury X suddenly doing well in some titles as a lot of its "fatter" capabilities that were previously sitting there under-utilised can soak up some of the indiscriminately despatched workload.

Hence the messy all over the place performance in games like Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.
 
fallout 4
Skyrim
cs go
dota 2
elder scrolls online
the division
Titanfall 2
GTA V
rainbow six siege
Click to expand...

Skyrim - Not optimised but the player base is there. Fair enough but it doesn't suddenly just not work eith with it
CS GO - Not optimised at all. Even then from all the CS:GO info I can find it runs perfectly well at rather high FPS.
TitanFall 2 - Deffo smaller player base than Battlefield, don't be silly. No fps from what I can find/see.
ESO - has been known to be awful at anything other than pure single core performance
GTA V - is known to offer lower overall FPS but smoother gameplay as shown in all reviews since day 1
The Division - is fine, runs smoother and most (if not all) latest reviews show it within margin of error of the Intel equivalent.
Dota 2 - got a specific Ryzen patch moths ago and runs much better. No it doesn't attain 200fps but then do you really need that much FPS. It still pulls above the 144fps fine.

You are blowing smoke again and trolling away.
 
I have also never heard anyone mention that you need x2 the refresh rate for nvidia fast sync....
If anyone needs 200fps then you should be on 144hz anyway
 
gavinh87 said:
I have also never heard anyone mention that you need x2 the refresh rate for nvidia fast sync....
If anyone needs 200fps then you should be on 144hz anyway
Click to expand...

that's literially how fast sync works, it's like the old school triple buffering (before it because ram extra frame sitting in the pipeline) and it's used in pretty much any competitive game.

technically it 'works' at any fps, but you don't get any benefits from it, at 2x the monitors refresh rate you get the same (non existent) input lag as having vsync off, but you don't get the tearing.

currently only 3440x1440 100hz is available, waiting for the 200hz panels from asus hoping they're here this year .
 
You get a benefit potentially from FastSync at any framerate above the refresh rate as it will select the nearest frame that fits the V-Sync window out of the buffer - higher framerates will give a higher chance of a frame being closer to the newest possible update - some stuff works better with it than others - some games do need 2-3x the refresh rate to avoid stutter, etc. where it is most beneficial is if you have monitors around 75-100Hz and a GPU that is capable of rendering 140+ FPS (60Hz still seems to have some problems in places with it).
 
I think it's pretty obvious that Intel wins in the vast majority of games out there purely because of single core performance, but the point is that the newer the game, the more likely it is to benefit more from Ryzen CPUs. I can't remember which site it was but one of the big ones have a particular suite of very new games (I think all 12 months old or less), the majority of them are either ties within margin of error or wins for Ryzen in terms of average FPS. Rise of the Tomb Raider used to be a big outlier but obviously since the patch it isn't.

Developers are already making patches for recent games that boost Ryzen performance significantly to the point where single-thread speed is far less important. If it's that easy to do, it's pretty obvious that going forward this will be done during game development. The multi-core war is only going to go one way.
 
I think this pretty much sums it up and will align with what the majority of us is thinking, from a credible source such as Digital Foundry.

It's also worth stressing that while gaming performance does lag behind Intel by and large, this does not make Ryzen 7 processors 'bad for gaming'. The Witcher 3's Novigrad City is one of the most processor-intensive areas of the game and the 1800X is still delivering a 119fps average. Our results show that the i7s AMD is targeting with Ryzen 7 are potentially longer-lasting for gaming - a key factor in any CPU purchase - but in the here and now, it's abundantly clear that Ryzen still does the job. Clearly PCs are used for more than just gaming, so if play is just one part of your requirement from a processor, Ryzen's undoubted capabilities elsewhere may make it the more logical choice than an i7 - and at these prices, the Ryzen 7 line's excellent overall performance simply cannot be ignored.

Ryzen has been pretty much quite a big success considering it's the first generation. Could it benefit from a higher clock speed and better single threaded performance? Absolutely, I think that is where AMD will look to focus on with the next revision, but it's multi threaded performance is very impressive making it more than just a one trick pony.

I for one can't wait to see what Threadripper brings to the table, AMD need to keep up the momentum and gain as much market share as possible to help push the development of more cores and performance for less money.

Will be interesting to see how Intel respond and how much improvement AMD an make with Zen 2 :). That's the one I'm looking at.
 
Doobedoo said:
I think this pretty much sums it up and will align with what the majority of us is thinking, from a credible source such as Digital Foundry.

It's also worth stressing that while gaming performance does lag behind Intel by and large, this does not make Ryzen 7 processors 'bad for gaming'. The Witcher 3's Novigrad City is one of the most processor-intensive areas of the game and the 1800X is still delivering a 119fps average. Our results show that the i7s AMD is targeting with Ryzen 7 are potentially longer-lasting for gaming - a key factor in any CPU purchase - but in the here and now, it's abundantly clear that Ryzen still does the job. Clearly PCs are used for more than just gaming, so if play is just one part of your requirement from a processor, Ryzen's undoubted capabilities elsewhere may make it the more logical choice than an i7 - and at these prices, the Ryzen 7 line's excellent overall performance simply cannot be ignored.

Ryzen has been pretty much quite a big success considering it's the first generation. Could it benefit from a higher clock speed and better single threaded performance? Absolutely, I think that is where AMD will look to focus on with the next revision, but it's multi threaded performance is very impressive making it more than just a one trick pony.

I for one can't wait to see what Threadripper brings to the table, AMD need to keep up the momentum and gain as much market share as possible to help push the development of more cores and performance for less money.

Will be interesting to see how Intel respond and how much improvement AMD an make with Zen 2 :). That's the one I'm looking at.
Click to expand...

basically

pure gaming= 7700k (or soon to be 8700k)
highest possible workflow speeds = skylake x
price/performance = ryzen.

this isn't saying ryzen is bad, but it's what amd has always had with its cpus/gpus which is price/performance, not all out performance.

if you're building a gaming rig an 8 core makes very little sense, as by far and large the majority of games and optimised for 4 cores, whilst favouring ipc and clock speed, there's no point in saying '8 is more futureproof' as you have no idea how many years it may take before that's actually a thing.

for productivity it depends how important your workflow is and your needs, skylake x offers a more premium product, as it offers excellent multi core and single core performance, with a combination of high ipc and high clock speeds, amd offers more (albeit slower) cores for less money, so it comes down to how many cores your workflow can take advantage of, and how much the extra time saved using a faster skylake x could save you if time=money in your job.
 
One little thing to add.

Best all around CPU with everything taken into consideration (gaming, productivity, total cost, power consumption ect) Ryzen 1700

One other thing to add. I wonder just how much difference quad channel memory will make with Threadripper considering the impact it has with the infinity fabric. Will we possible see Threadripper being slightly better at gaming than a 1700?
 
Last edited:
zornyan said:
basically

pure gaming= 7700k (or soon to be 8700k)
highest possible workflow speeds = skylake x
price/performance = ryzen.

this isn't saying ryzen is bad, but it's what amd has always had with its cpus/gpus which is price/performance, not all out performance.

if you're building a gaming rig an 8 core makes very little sense, as by far and large the majority of games and optimised for 4 cores, whilst favouring ipc and clock speed, there's no point in saying '8 is more futureproof' as you have no idea how many years it may take before that's actually a thing.

for productivity it depends how important your workflow is and your needs, skylake x offers a more premium product, as it offers excellent multi core and single core performance, with a combination of high ipc and high clock speeds, amd offers more (albeit slower) cores for less money, so it comes down to how many cores your workflow can take advantage of, and how much the extra time saved using a faster skylake x could save you if time=money in your job.
Click to expand...

Nice post!

Or, for pure gaming, do get SKL-X but the 6C part with the option to chuck in an 8C + later on if useful ;) and personally I do believe we'll see proper utilisation of the latter rather sooner than later.
 
TheF34RChannel said:
Nice post!

Or, for pure gaming, do get SKL-X but the 6C part with the option to chuck in an 8C + later on if useful ;) and personally I do believe we'll see proper utilisation of the latter rather sooner than later.
Click to expand...

that 'remains to be seen' I mean 8 cores could become needed by next year....or by 2025...none of us really know the future, and it's better to buy for the here and now than to spend more hoping it will become more relevant in years (bulldozer for example)

realistically 4/8 isn't going to hold you back, I mean it has a lead over 6/8 cores at the moment, even a little while back anandtech had a 6700k at 4.5ghz vs a 6900k and 5960x at around 4.4ghz and tested a few titles, even with similar clock speeds and IPC the 4 core was the fastest in every single test.

buy whatever is best for your needs today, **** tomorrow you might never live to see it.
 
The sweet spot right now for gaming and future proofing would be a fast 6/12 cpu which Intel will offer soon. Problem is it will be fairly poor value compared with ryzen 7. The prospect of dropping in a new ryzen cpu sometime next year without changing anything else makes ryzen even more tempting, even if it does lack some gaming performance currently even with fast ram.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom