• 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) ***

humbug said:
I don't understand how that relates to what i said ^^^^ this isn't 2011, i'm talking about how Intel users exaggerate how much better their CPU's are than Ryzen.



No, i don't, This is just trolling..... I'll let Panos respond to you on what he did and didn't say.
Click to expand...


I came multiple times under fire because I wrote "My 6800K@4Ghz or the 1700X@4Ghz are faster to my old [email protected], even in single thread games like WOT & WoWs at 2560x1440 while running TS and internet radio streaming on the background or videos on the second monitor".

that's the quote from panos.

in an actual single threaded game, such as arma 3 where on any cpu only one thread is under load, the 6700k at 4.8ghz would be significantly faster.

unless of course team speak and YouTube require 3 threads at 100% to run?

okay, how about this then

humbug,if someone asked you to build them a PC for playing ARMA and WOW and only single threaded games. what cpu would you put in it and why?
 
Why would we compare a 4c/8t intel chip with a higher core count amd chip, use it to compare 'single thread performance' based primarily on clock speed then extrapolate from this that a higher core & thread count chip made by intel would deliver the same amd-beating single thread performance, given we already know it's not true as we can see the higher core/thread intels hit lower clocks. That was where this argument started right? (Having a few people in here on ignore meaning I only see messages when I first open the page before logging in, so may have missed some messages & thus the point of whats being discussed?)
 
zornyan said:
I came multiple times under fire because I wrote "My 6800K@4Ghz or the 1700X@4Ghz are faster to my old [email protected], even in single thread games like WOT & WoWs at 2560x1440 while running TS and internet radio streaming on the background or videos on the second monitor".

that's the quote from panos.

in an actual single threaded game, such as arma 3 where on any cpu only one thread is under load, the 6700k at 4.8ghz would be significantly faster.

unless of course team speak and YouTube require 3 threads at 100% to run?

okay, how about this then

humbug,if someone asked you to build them a PC for playing ARMA and WOW and only single threaded games. what cpu would you put in it and why?
Click to expand...

Maybe those games are not always so 'single' or rather 'low' threaded, Its not at all so inconceivable in situations where Gaming + Multitasking (which is the experience Panos is talking about) that the Ryzen Chip would do better, in fact quite a lot of people, including reviewers have said the same. Ryzen 7 is widely known and respected for being a Multitasking monster, often it does that better even than Intel's $1000 8 core X99.
 
Last edited:
DragonQ said:
I'm more wondering why zornyan doesn't use capital letters to start sentences tbh.
Click to expand...

typing on my phone with fat thumbs and I'm lazy. probably lots of spelling mistakes too.

humbug said:
Maybe those games are not always so 'single' or rather 'low' threaded, Its not at all so inconceivable in situations where gaming + Multitasking (which is the experience Panos is talking about) that the Ryzen Chip would do better, in fact quite a lot of people, including reviewers have said the same. Ryzen 7 is widly known are respected for being a multitasking monster, often it does that better even than Intel's $1000 8 core X99.
Click to expand...

again I'm not arguing ryzens multitask capabilities, if you notice in the other thread I said it has a very good price/performance ratio.

what I am saying is it's silly for people to argue that a 4ghz ryzen is remotely faster in single/low threaded games, there's is literially heaps of evidence to prove this

I also, do not see team speak and YouTube using 3+ threads to run at 4.8ghz. come on be honest with yourself here. I often game with several chrome tabs open, teamspeak/discord and 4/5 launchers running in the background, they take literially no cpu power when running a game.
 
zornyan said:
I came multiple times under fire because I wrote "My 6800K@4Ghz or the 1700X@4Ghz are faster to my old [email protected], even in single thread games like WOT & WoWs at 2560x1440 while running TS and internet radio streaming on the background or videos on the second monitor".

that's the quote from panos.

in an actual single threaded game, such as arma 3 where on any cpu only one thread is under load, the 6700k at 4.8ghz would be significantly faster.

unless of course team speak and YouTube require 3 threads at 100% to run?

okay, how about this then

humbug,if someone asked you to build them a PC for playing ARMA and WOW and only single threaded games. what cpu would you put in it and why?
Click to expand...

If you actually pay attention to what he wrote, he states that he had better performance playing games whilst using teamspeak, listening to internet radio and watching videos on the second monitor.
He is not stating that the gaming performance is outright better, but the multitasking performance is better.
 
gavinh87 said:
If you actually pay attention to what he wrote, he states that he had better performance playing games whilst using teamspeak, listening to internet radio and watching videos on the second monitor.
He is not stating that the gaming performance is outright better, but the multitasking performance is better.
Click to expand...


TIL that running 3 programs in the background that use nearly no cpu power is "multitasking"

welp, better get a 18 core skylake just to run some extra chrome tabs and bf1 at the same time then...
 
gavinh87 said:
If you actually pay attention to what he wrote, he states that he had better performance playing games whilst using teamspeak, listening to internet radio and watching videos on the second monitor.
He is not stating that the gaming performance is outright better, but the multitasking performance is better.
Click to expand...

There is obviously that. But it doesn't come across as saying that the multithreaded is better in his post. The first time I read panos's post I just dismissed it and continued enjoying my own PC
 
Gzero said:
He just quoted relatively new games, and none of which you can prove are 'old single threaded Intel compiled engines'.
This is a forum, don't like what someone says, you can either ignore or post back with your opinion. What you shouldn't be doing is posting:
Click to expand...
You have a good point, but he literally goes round and round in circles and repeats the same thing even though people have pointed out he is wrong or provided reasoning for discrepancies. Also 2013, 2014 and 2015 are the release dates of those games. I wouldn't really call them relatively new.
 
zornyan said:
typing on my phone with fat thumbs and I'm lazy. probably lots of spelling mistakes too.



again I'm not arguing ryzens multitask capabilities, if you notice in the other thread I said it has a very good price/performance ratio.

what I am saying is it's silly for people to argue that a 4ghz ryzen is remotely faster in single/low threaded games, there's is literially heaps of evidence to prove this

I also, do not see team speak and YouTube using 3+ threads to run at 4.8ghz. come on be honest with yourself here. I often game with several chrome tabs open, teamspeak/discord and 4/5 launchers running in the background, they take literially no cpu power when running a game.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how much load Youtube encoding puts on the CPU, run this Video in 8K and watch what your CPU does... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLprVF6d7Ug

Reviews also don't tell the whole story, of course they are always looking for the biggest differences to put on their charts, so what you see is Intel at its best and AMD at its worst in whatever particular game they are testing the CPU on, what they are also doing is running these game on very sterile systems, they have very little of anything else installed on them and they don't take into account that actually a lot of people will play games with various services and applications running.

Reality is more in line with what Panos does rather than what Toms Hardware do.

cgvsdxcgv.png
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
You have a good point, but he literally goes round and round in circles and repeats the same thing even though people have pointed out he is wrong or provided reasoning for discrepancies. Also 2013, 2014 and 2015 are the release dates of those games. I wouldn't really call them relatively new.
Click to expand...

and the game panos was quoted as using was released in 2004.

so, his 13 year old game is a relevant example, the ones I quoted that are 2-3 years old arent?
 
Currently weighing up whether to go with a cheaper motherboard (e.g. MSI Tomahawk) and an 1800x or more expensive motherboard (e.g. CH6) and a 1700.

I'm thinking the 1800x would be less hassle; basically leave it at stock settings but with the memory tweaked. As the price difference is not that much, would there be many advantages pairing 1700 with a more expensive motherboard and overclocking it?
 
Bonjour said:
Currently weighing up whether to go with a cheaper motherboard (e.g. MSI Tomahawk) and an 1800x or more expensive motherboard (e.g. CH6) and a 1700.

I'm thinking the 1800x would be less hassle; basically leave it at stock settings but with the memory tweaked. As the price difference is not that much, would there be many advantages pairing 1700 with a more expensive motherboard and overclocking it?
Click to expand...

There isn't much difference between the 1800X and 1700 once overclocked, 100Mhz.

There is a higher chance that the X370 board's have that important better memory support than B350 boards, tho i did ask about the MSI Tomahawk for my own budgeted Ryzen Inquires and the response i got was the memory support and the board its self is actually very good.

Still, if you can afford an X370 board and a 1700 then i think you should go for that, i still think higher end boards are more important than 1800X vs 1700.
 
Bonjour said:
Currently weighing up whether to go with a cheaper motherboard (e.g. MSI Tomahawk) and an 1800x or more expensive motherboard (e.g. CH6) and a 1700.

I'm thinking the 1800x would be less hassle; basically leave it at stock settings but with the memory tweaked. As the price difference is not that much, would there be many advantages pairing 1700 with a more expensive motherboard and overclocking it?
Click to expand...

Only in terms of memory overclocking. Higher boards allow for bclk adjustment thus allowing higher frequencies.
That said, with the new memory dividers it shouldn't be necessary for decent memory speeds.
 
humbug said:
There isn't much difference between the 1800X and 1700 once overclocked, 100Mhz.

There is a higher chance that the X370 board's have that important better memory support than B350 boards, tho i did ask about the MSI Tomahawk for my own budgeted Ryzen Inquires and the response i got was the memory support and the board its self is actually very good.

Still, if you can afford an X370 board and a 1700 then i think you should go for that, i still think higher end boards are more important than 1800X vs 1700.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice :)

With this bundle, there's the best of both; 1800x and x370, for a similar price as a CH6 and 1700.

My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £727.47
(includes shipping: £10.50)



​


My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £735.47
(includes shipping: £10.50)



​
 
Bonjour said:
Thanks for the advice :)

With this bundle, there's the best of both; 1800x and x370, for a similar price as a CH6 and 1700.

My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £727.47
(includes shipping: £10.50)



​


My basket at Overclockers UK:

Total: £735.47
(includes shipping: £10.50)



​
Click to expand...

Personally I'd invest the cash in the better board. If you plan to keep this for a while and will upgrade the CPU.
For the sake of £8 I'd go with the crosshair, you wont miss that extra 200mhz the 1800x can give you (assuming you overclock the 1700 to at least 3.8) but you may use the extra features this board has down the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom