-
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.
Intel to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
Soldato
Gavin, your obvious "hate" on AMD is very very tedious. Even more so considering your obvious "love" for AMD not that many months ago. Just give it a rest and if you want to change your current CPU supplier......................just do it. The whole world and his dog dosn't need to know about it in every other CPU thread.
Memory & PCI-E controllers are integrated in the Ryzen die, you'll need a new CPU if you want PCI-E 4.0 or enhanced memory compatibility.
Not if AMD change to a traditional chipset. Though have we saturated PCIE 2 yet.
And for good reason. Look at the gains over time. The 780Ti beat the R9 290X by a decent margin. Now a 290 non X will beat a Titan Black. The Fury X is not far off a GTX1070. Ryzen has gained a lot of performance in a sort time frame. Crossfire scaling has been improving.
Soldato
It's more of a hatred for the guys that defend them at all costs. Vega is pretty much a failure yet it's getting praise lol.
Soldato
100% agree. That's why i bit the bullet and pressed the buy button on a 1080ti last thursday
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,034
I can't link competitors here.
2x F4-3600C15D-16GTZ: £500
2x GFY416GB2666C15DC: £245
That's a price difference of £255. I can't see how Ryzen is being cheaper while it needs some 3400C14 memory kits to keep up in the game.
It's not a gamble. Both Intel's HEDT today and AMD's Ryzen are doomed not to be able to live through the day where lots of games are scaling well beyond 4 cores. By the year 20% popular games can start to benefit from more than 4 cores, both Intel's HEDT today and AMD's Ryzen would have long lost bragging rights in forums, and no one would really bother bringing up their longevity. On the other hand, the 8700K would have been known as the gaming king for its life-cycle.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,034
Open your task manager, and ask yourself how often you can fill these boxes, especially when you need the CPU performance. If you see them idle'ing around most of the time, then it's like upkeeping an army doing nothing, and you might want to consider switching to down-sizing to a smaller group of elite units.
AMD's motherboard compatibility is surely an advantage, though this advantage is not that attractive to me, as I know that there will always be newer features being added to newer motherboards, such like USB-C / Thunderbolt 3 / more M.2 slots / better memory compatibility etc, making the older motherboard losing bragging rights in forums.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 963
If AMD went backwards to a ‘traditional’ chipset as you suggested it would impact the relationship between Ryzen and EPYC and disrupt their CPU model which is based on modularity.
The Zeppelin die has that I/O so that the server MCM chips have 4 times that; PCIe and memory controllers.
If they removed either of those from Zeppelin 2/3 it would castrate EPYC or mean they’d need to design a different chip for desktop and server thus losing economies of scale for starters.
Having all that I/O on the CPU is very good for latency amongst other things also.
The AM4 platform requires a chipset as the CPU alone doesn’t have enough I/O for anything but a very basic setup; 4 USB 3.0 ports, PCIe 3.0 x16 (x16 or x8/x8) and PCIe 3.0 x4 (PCIe x4 NVMe or PCIe x2 NVMe + SATA 3.0 x2).
That’s why AM4 boards use a chipset.
It’s nonsensical to think of regressing to a ‘traditional’ chipset.
Currently have an i5 4690k @ 4.5Ghz and I am really tempted to upgrade. I was looking at the Ryzen 1700 but I feel like for the best gaming performance I should go for a 7700k or wait for the 8700k.
But realistically, gaming at 1080p/144hz and 4k/60hz, how much of a performance increase would I see?
Is it worth the upgrade or is my i5 still enough for the next few years? (I have a 1080Ti at the moment).
But realistically, gaming at 1080p/144hz and 4k/60hz, how much of a performance increase would I see?
Is it worth the upgrade or is my i5 still enough for the next few years? (I have a 1080Ti at the moment).
Soldato
At that speed for games that use 4 cores or less the 1700 is actually a downgrade. Are you noticing the i5 holding you back in the games you play?
Really? I thought the opposite! interesting.
Well I am currently only playing Pubg which is a horribly optimised game haha. My settings are all on very low-low @ 1080p and I'm just hitting 120 fps average I'd say and that's with a 1080Ti lol
So I guess I would say that it is technically holding me back...but that's purely because the game runs like crap..same thing with BF1..
Soldato
I'd recommend the 8700k then, assuming you play on 144hz or higher. BF1 likes clockspeed though it needs to have enough cores also. 8700k should fit your needs.
Though be aware, the motherboard will likely only ever support 1 generation of CPU's so if you like upgrading your CPU without changing motherboards then maybe you should look at something else.
Last edited:
What are you talking about. You don't need 500 quid worth of memory to get the most from Ryzen. We've been over this before. Do you have a 3 page memory span too?
In most games the 1700 would not be a downgrade providing you overclock it. Many recent games suffer from frequent and significant frametime spikes on an i5 so whilst it may be able to get slightly higher average FPS in some titles, the minimums would be better on the 1700 resulting in better gameplay overall. It depends on the type of games you play though as stuff like WoW or ARMA probably prefer the 4670K.
BF1 is notorious for pushing an i5 to 100% usage, resulting in some really unpleasant FPS drops and stutter particularly in 64 player servers. I play BF1 almost everyday and noticed that actually the 1700 is more consistent than a 4790K. Not a huge difference, though some infrequent spikes which occurred with the 4790K are less jarring on the 1700.
As for PUBG it seems a little hit and miss as to what runs it well. I don't play it though so don't really know the 4670K vs 1700 scenario, but would look for a range of benchmarks. Last I heard was that they were introducing a patch to better use 6 cores, but I'm unsure how much difference this would make.
On a side note gaming performance between a 1600 and 1700 are incredibly similar so if gaming was the primary task then a 1600 is the most cost effective option.
In your shoes I would probably lean towards an used 4790K though as it would be better value over swapping your CPU/motherboard/RAM for gaming. Once you've sold your i5 it shouldn't cost much at all. The 4790K is still an excellent processor and will be for a fair few more years. Otherwise a 8700K is likely to be the absolute best option for gaming but it will cost more (CPU price+cooler+slightly more expensive motherboards) over Ryzen or just plopping in an used 4790K and I wouldn't buy a 7700K now either since Coffee Lake is close.
Last edited:
@Smoogels
BF1 was pushing my old i7 2600K close to 100% usage but I had better frametimes with it than I do with the 3.8Ghz R7 1700.
Ryzen actually has pretty awful frametimes in BF1 and a lot of other games unless you turn off SMT in the BIOS, you can see it in the GamersNexus benches.
Anything as recent as Haswell i5s would probably benefit a lot more from upgrading to Coffee Lake than Ryzen for gaming, but you do make a good point with the second hand 4790K, better gaming performance than a supposed Ryzen 'upgrade' for a lot less money spent.
Coffee Lake probably makes more sense for those stuck on Ivy/Sandy or lower.
BF1 was pushing my old i7 2600K close to 100% usage but I had better frametimes with it than I do with the 3.8Ghz R7 1700.
Ryzen actually has pretty awful frametimes in BF1 and a lot of other games unless you turn off SMT in the BIOS, you can see it in the GamersNexus benches.
Anything as recent as Haswell i5s would probably benefit a lot more from upgrading to Coffee Lake than Ryzen for gaming, but you do make a good point with the second hand 4790K, better gaming performance than a supposed Ryzen 'upgrade' for a lot less money spent.
Coffee Lake probably makes more sense for those stuck on Ivy/Sandy or lower.
It depends a lot how the benchmarks were carried out. What section of the game, test conditions, hardware setup and so forth. Whilst gamersnexus shows that large hit in minimums with SMT enabled, there are other reputable reviews which do not in BF1. At a quick glance Computerbase (which has a frametime graph) show that the 1800X is more consistent than even the 7700K whereas Techspot shows that the minimums for the 1700X/1800X is significantly better than i5 4670K and similar to the 4790K.
It also wouldn't surprise me if patches, BIOs updates etc have made a small difference for Ryzen compared to launch benchmarks. Techspot for example shows better results in Battlefield on a 1600 (published July 21st) compared to the launch review I linked for Ryzen 7.
I'd argue it could be worth upgrading a Haswell i5 depending on the games you play since they can suffer from large and frequent frametime spikes, but as I mentioned in the previous post an used 4790K is the better value option rather than shelling out for a new CPU/mobo/RAM, whether Ryzen or Coffee Lake, since the 4790K is still an excellent CPU.
I was mostly addressing/expanding the point by the other user that Ryzen would be a downgrade in performance compared to an Haswell i5 rather than recommending to upgrade from Haswell to Ryzen for gaming.
Last edited:
Permabanned
^^^ Agreed. Lol at the 7fps difference BF1 benchmark, especially given the fact that it's clocked 1ghz higher. Anyone that can perceive a 7fps performance difference will win a bag of haribo from me.