Soldato
Why would they do that?
-
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.
CPU Longevity?
- Thread starter cosmogenesis
- Start date
Why would they do that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
For single player games, cracking and piracy would have a serious negative impact on sales. You develop and release it for PC in the first instance, you lose your sales. Console platforms are far safer for developers because sales are guaranteed if the game is fun to play.
It shouldnt be used as a example if it has a issue , to lose so many fps and to have such low gpu usage as in the example then its not a fair comparison of CPU usage either . If a radeon card shows no difference then thats what your example should have used.
Overall we cant look at cpu usage only you have to look at the overall picture which in that case looks like the Ryzen is miles behind the intel with current games in Gameplay FPS wise (which for most games it isnt).
Have to ask yourself if most people were looking at a review and one cpu gave you 60+ fps less in a game how many would think well the cpu usage is lower so its better vs how many would think well same gpu 60fps slower that cpu cant feed that gpu well i'll skip it.
Ryzen so far overall is a great platform and has brought much needed competition to the cpu market but images like that one do it more harm than good IMO
The first image was fine and a great way to show ryzens power
Soldato
It shouldnt be used as a example if it has a issue , to lose so many fps and to have such low gpu usage as in the example then its not a fair comparison of CPU usage either . If a radeon card shows no difference then thats what your example should have used.
Overall we cant look at cpu usage only you have to look at the overall picture which in that case looks like the Ryzen is miles behind the intel with current games in Gameplay FPS wise (which for most games it isnt).
Have to ask yourself if most people were looking at a review and one cpu gave you 60+ fps less in a game how many would think well the cpu usage is lower so its better vs how many would think well same gpu 60fps slower that cpu cant feed that gpu well i'll skip it.
Ryzen so far overall is a great platform and has brought much needed competition to the cpu market but images like that one do it more harm than good IMO
The first image was fine and a great way to show ryzens power
Agreed not the best screenshot to use. My eyes wasn't on the FPS but CPU usage. Ironically when tested at 4k ryzen overtakes kabylake even with a 1ghz disadvantage.
Tomb raider is just one example, there are tons out there, division, mass effect etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
That doesn't sound so convincing, based on so many reviews I just checked
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,592
Some good info here but cores seem to be as good a factor as Ghz or IPCC
Soldato
That doesn't sound so convincing, based on so many reviews I just checked
We are looking at different reviews then.
my sister now has my i7 920 - One of my favourite chips!
But consoles now have more cores even if they are weak
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,592
Core look like the way to go as per the threadripper thread in this forum. 12C/16T and 16C/32T parts for the people with very deep wallets
The last AdoredTV video showed a pretty standard suite of games being used by one of the big sites (Tom's Hardware maybe) and when listed in order of release date, the newer ones universally favoured R7 over i7 (I think it was 4 out of the newest 5 had higher average FPS on Ryzen compared to Kaby Lake, and that's not even taking into account minimums or frame times, etc.
The idea that buying a 4c/8t for longevity at this point is a waste of time is not purely conjecture.
Caporegime
Stop being coy
If gavinh87 won't spit it out, I will. Almost certainly if you are building a new rig right now then yes AMD Ryzen is the route to go. Bang for buck, Ryzen is much better than intel right now.
+1
Soldato
I am going to completely ignore this one and not just the frame rate given that they are rendering it with a different API. Using DX12 on the 7700k that will naturally alter the cpus usage to raise it across the board compared to dx11.
My view personally on this matter as someone who is currently using a 6700k is that any currently comparable cpu from intel IE 6700k + will match the current ryzen in current games. <-- notice the word current a lot. As games and api technologies progress the ryzen chips will constantly start to stride forward simply thanks to it's cores.
This is already demonstrated outside of games in almost every other application that have progressed with the trend of more cores already and utilise ryzen fully where it will even now curb stomp anything within it's price bracket. And by curb stomp im talking american history X " bite the curb " curb stomp.
Would i swap to ryzen now whilst i have a 6700k? no not right now because im currently getting an equal experience in everything i use my system for. When my experience starts to be degraded by my cpu then i will upgrade but likely by this time another wave of cpus will be out.
Soldato
+1
This is why I see my current 6700k lasting 3-5 years, and when it comes to replacing it I don't think it's going to be a current Ryzen that I'll go for. The current CPU arms race will dictate its replacement and I have no preference whether it be Intel or AMD.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
It still takes several years to get good GPUs to easily handle 4k. By then it would be easy to purchase 32C64T CPUs at cheap price. 8C16T in 2017 would most likely waste their best years due to lack of good 4-way SLI with Pascal/Volta.
Caporegime
Rise of the Tomb Raider is a really really bad example of Ryzen performance as 99% of reviews with that game are done on nVidia GPU's and certainly on Ryzen with the DX12 API nVidia's performance is shocking compared with AMD's GPU's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tfTZjugDeg
For some reason nVidia's performance with DX12 is almost always slower than DX11 anyway, something is wrong with nVidia's DX12 drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tfTZjugDeg
For some reason nVidia's performance with DX12 is almost always slower than DX11 anyway, something is wrong with nVidia's DX12 drivers.
Last edited:
it seems we all have our own opinions and rightly so, but a big but. I had the i7 6700k and sold it before ryzen came out! Just for once I had faith in amd 
No regrets at all, and having seen some posts where some still have both builds and yet still prefer ryzen. To many quote on skylake , kaby vs ryzen , the day when it first came out, all the sh*te about 1080p gaming! , The gap is closing very fast, as new coding develops and may surpass kaby! And then when you think about it, I'd say 1080p is still the common res with mid range cards, so in all 1080p at 60hz for most - 101 - 200 is cowdung worth
I use reviwe as a guide line, i use users/ us reviews even more so. Take a look at all the jargon about Toms hardware over his 2017 cpu hierarchy , the chap is on acid and is now barred from my computer - utter ****.
If your happy with what you got accept it, i cant be arsed to throw around gaming fps charts to justify any cpu i have had. They all seem to differ! Whats worse is someone slagging of what they have not had or tried. Those that have, should slagg if need be, but i rate this cpu well over my skylake
No regrets at all, and having seen some posts where some still have both builds and yet still prefer ryzen. To many quote on skylake , kaby vs ryzen , the day when it first came out, all the sh*te about 1080p gaming! , The gap is closing very fast, as new coding develops and may surpass kaby! And then when you think about it, I'd say 1080p is still the common res with mid range cards, so in all 1080p at 60hz for most - 101 - 200 is cowdung worth
I use reviwe as a guide line, i use users/ us reviews even more so. Take a look at all the jargon about Toms hardware over his 2017 cpu hierarchy , the chap is on acid and is now barred from my computer - utter ****.
If your happy with what you got accept it, i cant be arsed to throw around gaming fps charts to justify any cpu i have had. They all seem to differ! Whats worse is someone slagging of what they have not had or tried. Those that have, should slagg if need be, but i rate this cpu well over my skylake
Last edited:
Soldato
Rise of the Tomb Raider is a really really bad example of Ryzen performance as 99% of reviews with that game are done on nVidia GPU's and certainly on Ryzen with the DX12 API nVidia's performance is shocking compared with AMD's GPU's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tfTZjugDeg
For some reason nVidia's performance with DX12 is almost always slower than DX11 anyway, something is wrong with nVidia's DX12 drivers.
I agree, my post of the tomb raider shows it in bad light. I was referring to the CPU usage however and not the FPS. As you said it does indeed have an issue with nvidia GPU's. I was hoping people on here could see past that.
with the new intel 6 cores in august and x299 coming.id be waiting especially if you already own a decent cpu/rig.amd will also probably offer the next revision of whats out now which will probably clock better by a small amount and run cooler.its only a few months aswell.when you building a system thats going to last 5 years you might aswell get the best you can.
while ryzen offers value its not that great in reality over anything already out.the next intel stuff could be quite a lot faster.
while ryzen offers value its not that great in reality over anything already out.the next intel stuff could be quite a lot faster.
Soldato
The Intel 6 core chip in August is based on Kaby Lake, and the X299 based on Skylake, so no IPC differences. You'll be waiting quite a while for the further refined 14nm Coffe Lake chips, along with the 300 series chipset.
Now given that they are launching the X299 gear in Q3, and Coffee Lake is supposedly due H2 '17, then I'd imagine it will be November-December time, waiting 6 months seems a bit excessive if you need to make a system now, or have already been waiting to upgrade. Even more so since even Intel have said that the performance increase with Coffee Lake will be 15% maximum, using synthetic benchmarks, which is what they said from Skylake to Kaby Lake, well they said 17% but lets not be pedants, and we all know there was actually no difference.
For majority of current games fewer cores/threads with higher clocks win high core/thread count CPU at lower clocks.
But easy single core/thread performance increases have been over for Intel for many years so game developers will have to improve multithreading to get major performance increases.
And while more lower clocked cores can't match peak framerates in single/few threaded game in normal PC with all background stuff taking resources it's more likely to able to minimize frame rate drops.
Effect of software running in background on normal PCs is something reviewers never test so real world numbers of especially four thread i5s might easily be little lower than in reviews.
Single core/thread performance hasn't improved much any in newer CPUs so obviously older models haven't aged much in that.
And with Intels being only relevant performance CPUs and Intel skimping on cores (4 cores reached decade ago!) and even in SMT most game developers haven't seen benefits in much improving multithreading of games.
With most CPUs having at most four cores/threads background stuff in normal non-clean OS PC is going to keep taking time from at least one core meaning developers haven't been able to count on having even that four cores/threads in game's use.
Consoles have very weak CPU cores almost comparable to tablets, but because of fixed&closed platform developers know available number of cores and can optimize code lot more easily to use more threads.
In PC games they've had to rely more on "lowest common denominator".
Which has been less than four threads thanks to Intel.
But easy single core/thread performance increases have been over for Intel for many years so game developers will have to improve multithreading to get major performance increases.
And while more lower clocked cores can't match peak framerates in single/few threaded game in normal PC with all background stuff taking resources it's more likely to able to minimize frame rate drops.
Effect of software running in background on normal PCs is something reviewers never test so real world numbers of especially four thread i5s might easily be little lower than in reviews.
Two "good" reasons for that.
Single core/thread performance hasn't improved much any in newer CPUs so obviously older models haven't aged much in that.
And with Intels being only relevant performance CPUs and Intel skimping on cores (4 cores reached decade ago!) and even in SMT most game developers haven't seen benefits in much improving multithreading of games.
With most CPUs having at most four cores/threads background stuff in normal non-clean OS PC is going to keep taking time from at least one core meaning developers haven't been able to count on having even that four cores/threads in game's use.
Consoles have very weak CPU cores almost comparable to tablets, but because of fixed&closed platform developers know available number of cores and can optimize code lot more easily to use more threads.
In PC games they've had to rely more on "lowest common denominator".
Which has been less than four threads thanks to Intel.