Caporegime
Humbug, have you bought Zen yet?
I have. It doesn't need a PR spin.
I have. It doesn't need a PR spin.
-
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 "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Caporegime
Not yet, i had higher priorities, such as a new GPU, 1070 Quick Silver to go with a nice silver themed Ryzen Motherboard
, i will, soon....
Last edited:
Caporegime
The point is, Zen doesn't need some crusade to champion it.
It's solid, but I don't need a spin on frame rate analysis (Nor do others). People will buy it because it's a solid product, sure it hasn't quite got the total core for core that a fully clocked Kabylake has or even a fully clocked Haswell, but it's still a solid CPU.
I need a new GPU, but I'm not buying Nvidia, so waiting on Vega.
Caporegime
Using that slide to claim the 8 core Ryzen is only as fast as a 4 core Intel is spin if not a misunderstanding of said slide, i'm simply pointing out its obvious the Intel 8 core is no better, ergo the game doesn't use more than 4.
I'm not the only one pointing out mistakes in interpretations of the slide.... no one is spinning anything, these are facts.
Caporegime
The best overall average frame rates are achieved on the 8 core Intel. That 8 core Intel due to its clock speed has the lowest core for core of the chips up for debate. So I'm not sure how you can come to a blanket remark on performance.
The question raised needs to be how the benchmark was conducted. But then again. I don't really care. My 1700's performance is up there with the pack rather than lagging behind like the era of the Piledriver AMD owners.
The question raised needs to be how the benchmark was conducted. But then again. I don't really care. My 1700's performance is up there with the pack rather than lagging behind like the era of the Piledriver AMD owners.
Soldato
[/QUOTE]
If you can't see that a cpu from years ago with half the core count has better averages and loses on minimums by 1 fps that could be down to rounding by 0.1 fps, I don't know what to say. Anyone can make up some long winded explanation skewing things either way on the why and how, but it doesn't change that fact.
Ryzen is a good thing. I'd be satisfied owning one, just. The gaming performance however relative to other benches is disappointing.
Soldato
If you can't see that a cpu from years ago with half the core count has better averages and loses on minimums by 1 fps that could be down to rounding by 0.1 fps, I don't know what to say. Anyone can make up some long winded explanation skewing things either way on the why and how, but it doesn't change that fact.
Ryzen is a good thing. I'd be satisfied owning one, just. The gaming performance however relative to other benches is disappointing.[/QUOTE]
You've hit the nail on the head. Gaming performance relative to other benches is disappointing. The CPU has the power there it's not being utilised properly. Things will improve when games are made with ryzen in mind.
Caporegime
I 'and others for that matter' have already explained this, the average FPS on the lower clocked lower performance 4770K are higher than on the higher performance higher clocked 6700K, how do you explain that using your logic, you can't....
The avrage FPS on the 4 thread 4670K are the same as the 8 thread 6700K, again you can't explain that, all of the scores from the 2600K up are within a cluster of FPS of eachother, a cluster in which slower Intel CPU's are scoring higher than faster Intel CPU's, such is a very normal fog of GPU bound performance and margins of error, if a 4 thread CPU is the same performance as an 8 thread CPU then anything more than 4 threads are not being used.
Ignoring all that ^^^^ and simply picking up on the fact that the average FPS on Intel 8 core are 15 and 8 higher on the 4 core than AMD's 8 core is frankly spinning it to extremes, you know better, you know what matters in CPU bound game benchmarks are the minimum FPS, in that the Ryzen Chip scores highest of all, it score 12 FPS higher than the Intel 8 core you cite, that is a performance difference of 20% to the Ryzen chip. Don't pretend you didn't see that. Why do you think the Ryzen Chip is at the top of the chart? it has the highest minimums, even they are saying the averages in this context don't matter.
Actually, you know what, you should get yourself a Pascal card before you comment on stuff like this, if you had one you would know because of GPU boost 3 the performance of them can vary from one moment to the next, that probably explains the all over the place GPU bound averages...
Last edited:
1600 3.8ghz changed from a 4670k 4ghz and my computer is like the flash, speedy
20% how would any Intel fan explain that then? that the Intel chip was really tired that day, took a nap and well didnt wake up?
anyhow really happy with my rig every day since I got it.
Permabanned
I guess the point is, in reality for a lot of people Ryzen will more than suit their needs, other than a minor imperceptible fps advantage in some games, for a very acceptable price. For those need a little bit more performance in some situations and don't mind paying cost to be the boss then Intel is the choice for them.
No need for the tribalism you pay your money and take your choice both will be suitable for someone, just depends what your priorities are. Bang for buck or best is best.
No need for the tribalism you pay your money and take your choice both will be suitable for someone, just depends what your priorities are. Bang for buck or best is best.
ryzen vs Intels same priced 6600k
issue with Intel is once you have 100% cpu utilisation you get stutter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlOs_McAVZ0
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,221
This is the main thing for me. Years ago I went from dual to quad core for that reason and it is getting that way with Quad cores now. It only takes a single app or process to kick in, in the background and suddenly you are a core or more down. With the 8 cores I have now this is not a problem , my previous quad core was starting to get more affected by this.
Caporegime
I think looking at all the games overall these two are pretty even, Intel win some and Ryzen wins others, Metro LL is a pretty big performance gap with for Ryzen tho.
On that alone Ryzen is clearly the better gaming CPU but further in the video yes the 6600K does spend a lot of time with all its threads at 100% and the stuttering its causing is horrendous. some might argue thats because its deliberately setup to be completely CPU bound and at 1080P its wouldn't happen, and yet mainstream reviewers have always benchmarked CPU's in this way, their argument being that as GPU's get faster those results would become an issue for the users of the weaker CPU, so with that in mind the i5's just can't cut it, clearly the way to go is 6 cores, the Ryzen 1600.
Caporegime
If you say so.
I think the testing methodology needs scrutiny.
If the game is only capable of using 4 cores, then a CPU with lower core for core performance would never have the highest average frame rates.
I'm also not dismissing the better minimums of ryzen at all.
Last edited:
Caporegime
This is absolutely bang on.
The ryzen tiers are absolute bang on. I can scarcely believe anyone having legitimate reasons to pick the intel price competitor
Caporegime
I wish more CPU reviews had frame times and graphs of the time-runs instead of simple bar charts,and it would be nice if they linked to the actual test scenes being used.
I still LOL at when The TechReport used one of the least intensive scenes of Crysis3 to test CPU performance,which was essentially just a stretch of water to run through.
Caporegime
That's the thing, it's all down to testing methodology.
I think what AMD have released is absolutely stellar though.
Wish you'd update the cinebench thread so I can compare my single thread performance easier though
.
Caporegime
That's the thing, it's all down to testing methodology.
I think what AMD have released is absolutely stellar though.
Wish you'd update the cinebench thread so I can compare my single thread performance easier though
Well a video of what area they are testing plus a time-run and frame times would make it easier for people to see what is being tested and also replicate the said results, and I will see if I have some time during the weekend and start adding some results.
Soldato
You are aware it's the none k variant of skylake and lower clocks. There is no 6700k on the slide. I only say as you comment on my ability to look at basic data.
Caporegime
Semantics... ^^^^^^^^ or would you care to explain how 2.5% higher clock makes a 10% difference? it doesn't...
Not that i'm suggesting all do... but you can put anything you like on a slide... a video, well that is FAR more telling...
Watch this, all of it and tell me i5 vs Ryzen 1600 Intel is the better gaming CPU, it just isn't, and yet so called mainstream reviewers who don't do videos, only slides, are still trying to make out Intel is the only gaming choice, with them all behaving like Intel's advertising arm is it any wonder AMD are just about bankrupt? the thing is these people are businesses employing sometimes multiple offices.... where do they get that kind of money from? google adds? no..... for the sake of competition and there in grounded pricing and continuing performance upgrades and innovation: just because Ryan Shrout says "_________" that doesn't necessarily mean there is any truth to anything he says.
Look at the i5 maxed out in some of these games and the stuttering that's causing, Toms Hardware never tell you about that on any of their review 'Intel marketing' slides........
Not only is the Ryzen chip performing higher most of the time.. the reason for it is clear when you look at the level of stress the 6600K's miserable 4 threads are under, it can get so bad it causes horrendous stuttering, have you ever seen any of the classic mainstream reviewers mention this? can you see any of this from any of their slides? no... these people are not in the business of giving you any sort of factual advice, if they did that they wouldn't have a sponsor in Intel, they wouldn't have a revenue to Employ the amount of people they do.
Not that i'm suggesting all do... but you can put anything you like on a slide... a video, well that is FAR more telling...
Watch this, all of it and tell me i5 vs Ryzen 1600 Intel is the better gaming CPU, it just isn't, and yet so called mainstream reviewers who don't do videos, only slides, are still trying to make out Intel is the only gaming choice, with them all behaving like Intel's advertising arm is it any wonder AMD are just about bankrupt? the thing is these people are businesses employing sometimes multiple offices.... where do they get that kind of money from? google adds? no..... for the sake of competition and there in grounded pricing and continuing performance upgrades and innovation: just because Ryan Shrout says "_________" that doesn't necessarily mean there is any truth to anything he says.
Look at the i5 maxed out in some of these games and the stuttering that's causing, Toms Hardware never tell you about that on any of their review 'Intel marketing' slides........
Not only is the Ryzen chip performing higher most of the time.. the reason for it is clear when you look at the level of stress the 6600K's miserable 4 threads are under, it can get so bad it causes horrendous stuttering, have you ever seen any of the classic mainstream reviewers mention this? can you see any of this from any of their slides? no... these people are not in the business of giving you any sort of factual advice, if they did that they wouldn't have a sponsor in Intel, they wouldn't have a revenue to Employ the amount of people they do.
Last edited: