CPU Longevity?

[Thekwango]

Nope. You still don't get the concept of bragging rights. Let's stop here

Nope? What are you saying nope to?

Of course I get the concept of bragging rights. I've just spent **** knows how many posts pointing out that those who want them are in the absolute smallest minority of pc users/gamers.

I also get where you're coming from. Due to being given bad advice in the past you now advocate only buying the absolute 'best' most expensive hardware. Nothing wrong in that if the 'best' most expensive hardware was head and shoulders above is competitors. Which is why up to a few months ago it was fine to simply say get an Intel i5/i7 - but Ryzen has changed the landscape - those Intel chips aren't head and shoulders above the competition anymore, in fact in some instances they are on par at best. You're right though, let's just stop here. Can I please just ask though that you re read some of my posts thoroughly again and take on some of what I've said. Maybe together we can stop this merry go round of poor advice

 

[voidshatter]

but Ryzen has changed the landscape

Ryzen only changes the landscape for a very narrow section of specific usage, i.e. budget-restricted, multi-threaded and not clock-sensitive.

For gaming , 7700K is still the king and will continue to be of top standard for years, until affordable GPUs become powerful enough as if non-existent 4-way SLI TitanXPs of perfect efficiency.

For a long list of daily applications e.g. those I listed in #115 of this thread, good luck with Ryzen.

 

[Thekwango]

Ryzen only changes the landscape for a very narrow section of specific usage, i.e. budget-restricted, multi-threaded and not clock-sensitive.

For gaming , 7700K is still the king and will continue to be of top standard for years, until affordable GPUs become powerful enough as if non-existent 4-way SLI TitanXPs of perfect efficiency.

For a long list of daily applications e.g. those I listed in #115 of this thread, good luck with Ryzen.

Budget restricted? I'll change that for you to budget conscious. Which is not narrow section of pc users. It's the vast majority. If you don't believe that to be true you have something wrong with you. But I'm more leaning towards you either being a troll or Intel fanboy.

Tell you what you do, go look in the first 3 sub sections of the hardware forum. How many spec me's are now Ryzen builds??

But anyway, I give up. Keep posting nonsense. You clearly have a chip (forgive the pun) on your shoulder and are poorly misinformed or completely unable to read and understand some of the more recent reviews.

As Mark Twain once said,

'Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

And to be clear I'm not calling you stupid, just your points of view

 

[Doogles]

Yeah, I just posted a benchmark of BF1 where Ryzen 1800X got worse performance than i7-7700K. Gonna wait longer to see 6-core and 8-core to shine, *if* they don't get out-numbered by 16C32T, 32C64T or whatever comes next.

It will get beaten because having higher IPC with higher frequency of course it will happen but pair a 4c/8t R5 vs 8c/16t at the same frequency and you will see what I mean, don't compare two completely different architectures.

 

[humbug]

You think Ryzens are doing good in overclocking, at merely 4GHz? Take a look into the Valley thread. An i7-7700K can disable 2 cores and HT and go for [email protected] and achieve a high score. What about Ryzen? Bloody example.

Your GTX 1080 performance with a 5.1Ghz 7700K is lower than Whyscotty with a 5930k @4.4Ghz...

Seems like you bought the wrong chip....

 

[humbug]

This needs saying again....

Its on a slightly different subject but the same applies, the 7700K is £150 more than the Ryzen 1600, which is just as capable as the 7700K in games and faster in everything else and better future proof, there is no good reason to spend £150 more on the 7700K just for today, if your also thinking about the future the Ryzen 1600 makes a lot more sense.

The 7700K is near £150 more than AMD's 'just as and often more capable 6 core', Intel's equivalent 6 core will be £400+

I just don't get it, AMD right now have a better chip than Intel for the money, even AMD's motherboard are less expensive, so the answer is wait for even more expensive Intel chip's and boards?

There is a 7% difference between the 7700K and the £150 cheaper Ryzen 5 chips, take out all the games prior to 2016 at its actually the Ryzen chip that wins, in everything outside of gaming the Ryzen chip wins conclusively.

But no... everyone should wait for Intel's £400 response.

Intel throwing more thread at it does not help them.

And yes the Ryzen chips are far better future proofing...

 

[voidshatter]

Your GTX 1080 performance with a 5.1Ghz 7700K is lower than Whyscotty with a 5930k @4.4Ghz...

Seems like you bought the wrong chip....

That's not the same graphics card. My 1080 is reference on air at a lower clock (which almost never stays at boosted clocks throughout a benchmark run). You'll need the same graphics card to compare different CPUs. If I don't overclock the CPU to 5.1GHz then I won't make it to this score.

 

[humbug]

That's not the same graphics card. My 1080 is reference on air at a lower clock (which almost never stays at boosted clocks throughout a benchmark run). You'll need the same graphics card to compare different CPUs. If I don't overclock the CPU to 5.1GHz then I won't make it to this score.

Rubbish, that's lame, a 1080 is a 1080 be it a Founders Edition or AIB running at similar clocks, what are you saying? you lied about the clocks you were running at?


Whyscotty: 2088/2778
You: 2076/2790

Same clocks.

nVidia also argues the Founders Edition is better binned than any AIB.

Ryzen 1600 is £200
7700K is £350 and overall 7% faster in games when not just cherry picking games, see Tech Power Up review as a whole.

The Ryzen 1600 has more threads, is faster in Rendering, Encoding, Streaming and Multitasking and is the better chip for future games.

 

[voidshatter]

Rubbish, that's lame, a 1080 is a 1080 be it a Founders Edition or AIB running at similar clocks, what are you saying? you lied about the clocks you were running at?

nVidia argues the Founders Edition is better binned than any AIB.

Clocks cannot be lied because there are screenshots. However, a screenshot at the finishing scene doesn't tell the whole story. If you ever understand how nVidia's GPU Boost 3.0 works, then you'll know the fact that the clock keeps changing throughout the whole benchmark run. Read some reviews first if you don't have one to try.

 

[voidshatter]

Ryzen 1600 is £200
7700K is £350 and overall 7% faster in games when not just cherry picking games, see Tech Power Up review as a whole.

The Ryzen 1600 has more threads, is faster in Rendering, Encoding, Streaming and Multitasking and is the better chip for future games.

Got my 7700K for £275, which is just £75 more expensive than your Ryzen 1600, and I got to keep my Z170 motherboard (instead of buying another AMD motherboard for over £100), and still achieve 5GHz to be 20% faster than Ryzens in so many games and applications which rely on clocks other than threads.

 

[humbug]

Good for you. We are talking about actual retail cost, not whatever deal you get yours for. i can't buy it anywhere now with £75 off, even if i did its still too expensive, its still £75 more than the 1600 ^^^^
Retail its £350 vs £200.

Clocks cannot be lied because there are screenshots. However, a screenshot at the finishing scene doesn't tell the whole story. If you ever understand how nVidia's GPU Boost 3.0 works, then you'll know the fact that the clock keeps changing throughout the whole benchmark run. Read some reviews first if you don't have one to try.

I know exactly how GPU boost 3 works, i have a 1070.

Besides Valley Screenshots being meaningless yours at 2151Mhz are among the highest i have ever seen, WhyScotty's screen cap has been deleted but if your trying to tell me he was clocked 2.2% higher to make up the difference in his score to yours then he would have to have the only 2200Mhz Pascal card there.

Face it, your 5.1Ghz 7700K is not helping you when Whyscotty is getting higher scores with a 4.4Ghz older 8 core chip with less IPC.

 

[humbug]

Here is mine BTW, just in case you don't believe me.
Oh, yes, that is an Intel CPU, some AMD fanboy.....

Sorry for the delay, i'm updating this now
---------------

MSI GTX 1070 Quick Silver @ 2088/4500
4690K @ 4.6Ghz

4330

 

[voidshatter]

Good for you. We are talking about actual retail cost, not whatever deal you get yours for. i can't buy it anywhere now with £75 off, even if i did its still too expensive, its still £75 more than the 1600 ^^^^
Retail its £350 vs £200.



I know exactly how GPU boost 3 works, i have a 1070.

Besides Valley Screenshots being meaningless yours at 2151Mhz are among the highest i have ever seen, WhyScotty's screen cap has been deleted but if your trying to tell me he was clocked 2.2% higher to make up the difference in his score to yours then he would have to have the only 2200Mhz Pascal card there.

Face it, your 5.1Ghz 7700K is not helping you when Whyscotty is getting higher scores with a 4.4Ghz older 8 core chip with less IPC.

I'm afraid you've just got to give up because you're not getting anywhere. I just downclocked the 7700K back to 4.5GHz to run this for you again:

Spoiler

 

[humbug]

I'm afraid you've just got to give up because you're not getting anywhere. I just downclocked the 7700K back to 4.5GHz to run this for you again:

Spoiler

I get thats a lower score than with it at 5.1Ghz.

Do you get that Whyscotty got a 2.2% higher score with the same GPU clocked the same yet he did it with a 4.4Ghz older 8 core CPU? do you get that his score with that CPU is even higher again than yours now that you down clocked it? do you get that you have a bigger CPU bottleneck than he does, despite his CPU having less IPC and lower clocked?

No, you don't.

Do you get why the Ryzen chip here is nearly 60% faster than the Intel one?

Does the thread usage comparison give it away? is this maybe why the Ryzen chip has better longevity than the Intel one?

 

[voidshatter]

I get thats a lower score than with it at 5.1Ghz.

Do you get that Whyscotty got a 2.2% higher score with the same GPU clocked the same yet he did it with a 4.4Ghz older 8 core CPU? do you get that his score with that CPU is even higher than your now that you down clocked it? do you get that you have a bigger bottleneck than he does?

No, you don't.

That's a different graphics card, and presumably with water-cooling, which helps a lot with staying at the boosted clock throughout the run. I actually received my 1080 earlier than my second copy of 7700K but why did I not post in the Valley's thread? Because I knew from the first copy of 7700K that my previous 6700K doesn't get the most out of my 1080 because my 6700K can only do 4.5GHz. Take a look into the [email protected] screenshot:

Spoiler

 

[voidshatter]

Do you get why the Ryzen chip here is nearly 60% faster than the Intel one?

Again, this is "LOW SETTINGS". I don't play at such settings. By the time an affordable GPU can handle games at ultra settings as if today's GPU handle Metro at "LOW SETTINGS" to make CPUs with low number of threads become the bottleneck, chances are that the Ryzen product line or whatever comes at that time can hit higher clocks, which would force current Ryzen users to upgrade anyway.

 

[Doogles]

I get thats a lower score than with it at 5.1Ghz.

Do you get that Whyscotty got a 2.2% higher score with the same GPU clocked the same yet he did it with a 4.4Ghz older 8 core CPU? do you get that his score with that CPU is even higher again than yours now that you down clocked it? do you get that you have a bigger CPU bottleneck than he does, despite his CPU having less IPC and lower clocked?

No, you don't.

Do you get why the Ryzen chip here is nearly 60% faster than the Intel one?

Does the thread usage comparison give it away? is this maybe why the Ryzen chip has better longevity than the Intel one?

I wouldn't bother arguing with him, just let him believe what he wants you can't teach some people.

 

[humbug]

Its fine ^^^^ it just makes the point over and over again, eventually 'if not with him' it will sink into reasonable minds reading this.

Again, this is "LOW SETTINGS". I don't play at such settings. By the time an affordable GPU can handle games at ultra settings as if today's GPU handle Metro at "LOW SETTINGS" to make CPUs with low number of threads become the bottleneck, chances are that the Ryzen product line or whatever comes at that time can hit higher clocks, which would force current Ryzen users to upgrade anyway.

To make CPUs with low number of threads become the bottleneck.

Yes.... YES YES YES this is exactly the point, when you test a CPU's true performance in games you make the CPU Not the GPU work for it.

What do you think will happen when GPU's get faster, and faster and....? the CPU will have to work harder and harder to keep up, the way you test for that with weaker GPU, or one from today is to offload the work onto the CPU by turning the resolution down, it mimics the faster GPU making the CPU work hard to keep up.

The result is as that screenshot proves the Ryzen Chip with 50% more cores, 75% more threads is 60% faster than the i5 there.

So the better CPU for longevity is....??????? yes, its the Ryzen chip.

 

[Thekwango]

I wouldn't bother arguing with him, just let him believe what he wants you can't teach some people.

Yup. Even with the weight of opinion AND facts against him he still can't grasp it.

You can lead a horse to water and all that.

 

[voidshatter]

So the better CPU for longevity is....??????? yes, its the Ryzen chip.

Longevity is based on the fact that it is performing well. If something isn't performing pretty well at launch, then where does longevity come from? The persistence of being of poor performance?

Below are operation times (in seconds, lower is better) for some daily applications. Wait for Ryzen to come back?