Modern day CPU reviews and what is wrong with them.

[humbug]

I will try to keep it as short as possible, tho there is a lot to get through.

There are a couple of things to know about CPU performance testing for Games, the most fundamental and basic of which is to insure the performance you are getting from the system is bound be the CPU and not the GPU.

If the GPU is doing most or all of the work then you are not seeing how much performance the CPU has to give, make sense, right?

To me a lot of Mainstream reviewers fail to do that.

For the most part their CPU game performance testing they are using a GTX 1080 GPU, 2667Mhz System RAM and the highest game quality settings possible. Toms Hardware use Ultra High quality settings @ 1080P in BF1, for example..... now i have a GTX 1070 OC to run at around stock GTX 1080 performance and i know in campaign mode at those setting the CPU is not being stressed at all.

As a result a CPU with higher single threaded performance, such as a higher clocked CPU like the 7700K will win, predictably that is the conclusion all of these mainstream reviewers arrive at,

A small taster of that....

Pcgamer

For pure gaming performance, I'd still point people to Intel, but if you're looking for something of a Jack-of-all-trades processor that won't break the bank, the new Ryzen 5 chips warrant serious consideration.

Guru3D

The biggest discussion at Ryzen's launch was 1080p gaming performance. This problem is still here, but not as big as some state it is. Ryzen is a truly great processor series, but it lacks a little in 1080p gaming situations where you are more CPU bound (if you have a fast enough graphics card). There has been much debate on the cause of it, memory latency, latency in-between the CCX modules on the processor, driver issues, Windows 10, game optimizations, benchmarking with a GeForce card over an AMD one, thread schedulers and so on. The reality is simple, the results are what they are. Ryzen 5 and 7 lack a good 10-20% in performance with super fast graphics cards in a lower resolution compared to the fastest clocked Intel SKUs.

That second one, Guru3D actually say Intel is better when CPU bound, yet if you look at their review none of the CPU's are ever CPU bound, what a joke...

Nothing at all wrong with the results they got and their conclusions based on those results.
Its the methodology and reasoning behind it that's flawed.

Most of us keep our CPU's for 3 to 5 years, the thing that we upgrade is the GPU, we do that because they get faster, games get more advanced and use more system recourse as a whole, so what i want to know is how much longevity is in the CPU? how much headroom is left in it?

When you look at reviews that do actually stress the CPU what you see is that often (not always) but significantly; is that the equivalent Intel CPU's are nothing like as powerful as the Ryzen CPU's in a lot of modern games.
I think the problem is an assumption that game do not use more than 3 or 4 threads, that is an out of date idea, its an idea that should have been put to rest when you realised that back in the day a 4 core 2500K was always 20% or so faster than the FX-8350, now its often the other way round. Games these days use way more than 3 or 4 threads.

I can easily illustrate this with what is a well executed CPU review.

We all know Metro Last Light, how CPU Intensive it can be, look at this.....

That is a massive 55% performance advantage to the 6 core Ryzen over the 4 core Intel, a ridiculous performance win for AMD,
why? well this is why a video run-through review is so much more telling that numbers on a slide, look at the thread load on the Intel CPU on the right vs the AMD CPU on the left, all of the Intel's 4 threads are completely saturated, as a result the GPU is over 50% more bottlenecked on it than it is on the Ryzen CPU.

Now, to be even more clear about this,

First image both CPU's at 249 FPS, i caught it just where the Intel CPU was at its limit.

Moving on a little the Intel CPU still at 100% but the game wants more, to the Ryzen chip now pulls ahead, 318 FPS vs 277.

Moving on yet more and the Ryzen CPU is still gathering more pace....

The truth is when actually put to the test AMD's Ryzen CPU is not just faster than Intel's rival, it destroys it....

Here is the Ryzen 1700 @ 3.9Ghz vs the 7700K @ 5Ghz in BF1, yes what you are seeing there is the 7700K's 8 threads completely maxed out.

Spoiler: Big pic

Back when CPU reviews was Sandy or Ivy Bridge vs Bulldozer or Vishera reviewers did off load all the work on to the CPU, Anand went as far as to benchmark games at 480P to be absolutely sure.

So whats changed now to change the testing methodology to something that does not load the work on to the CPU at all?

IMO the answer, perhaps is in the results once this testing methodology is used.

It makes me sad because not only are the reading public not getting whole truthful information, its also confirming my fears that no matter what AMD do, no matter how good they make their competing products they will always be portrayed as the loser, the one not to go with....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlOs_McAVZ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXVIPo_qbc4

 

[gavinh87]

And then we have toms hardware which just flat out lies. It's a minefield for anyone wanting to get into pc gaming tbh.

 

[~>Dg<~]

across the board intel are generally faster at games.in the very few cases that actually use more cores like bf1 then its close.x99 still beats out any ryzen on bf1 also.there isnt much in it anyway.reviews are 99 biased anyway or making sure they benefit the people who they deal with.

best just to do your own benchmarks with friends and see.

 

[humbug]

across the board intel are generally faster at games.in the very few cases that actually use more cores like bf1 then its close.x99 still beats out any ryzen on bf1 also.there isnt much in it anyway.reviews are 99 biased anyway or making sure they benefit the people who they deal with.

best just to do your own benchmarks with friends and see.

Um... yes altho i haven't seen it i would agree but i wouldn't think something like a 6800K is not much more than marginally faster than the equivalent Ryzen 6 core but crucially costs more than twice as much

There are also a lot more than "very few Cases games use more than 4 threads" increasingly its actually more than not. hell even an ancient game like Metro LL is some 60% faster on the Ryzen 6 core...

And then we have toms hardware which just flat out lies. It's a minefield for anyone wanting to get into pc gaming tbh.

Yeah Toms lost my respect when they kicked off their hyperbolic "RX 480 kills motherboards" crap, because it pulled more than 75 Watts from the PCIe, 'which is not actually that unusual' and in their own reviews they had previously tested nVidia cards actually pulling even more power from the PCIe than the RX 480 was, but that was all fine.....

Jokers...

 

[Dave2150]

Hmm, I don't see the point in all the fuss over AMD/Intel.

Right now Intel is still the best for gaming, which is what most people use their PC's for these days.

AMD is better for encoding video, running multiple VM's, or doing those while gaming at the same time.

The problem is that hardly anyone actually encodes video, runs VM's etc, hence why Intel are still recommended/favoured, as they are faster in games.

Besides, this year we'll have 6 core mainstream Intel CPU's (coffeelake) which will annihilate even the 1800x in everything, due to Intel's 14nm++ process development, two additional cores and of course more cache.

 

[gavinh87]

Hmm, I don't see the point in all the fuss over AMD/Intel.

Right now Intel is still the best for gaming, which is what most people use their PC's for these days.

AMD is better for encoding video, running multiple VM's, or doing those while gaming at the same time.

The problem is that hardly anyone actually encodes video, runs VM's etc, hence why Intel are still recommended/favoured, as they are faster in games.

Besides, this year we'll have 6 core mainstream Intel CPU's (coffeelake) which will annihilate even the 1800x in everything, due to Intel's 14nm++ process development, two additional cores and of course more cache.

Do you guys have inside knowledge or something? Everyone is spouting coffelake is going to destroy everything but we don't know **** yet. Even if it has kabylakes IPC and clockspeed Which I doubt it's still only 2 more cores and they will be stupidly expensive.

 

[humbug]

Hmm, I don't see the point in all the fuss over AMD/Intel.

Right now Intel is still the best for gaming, which is what most people use their PC's for these days.

AMD is better for encoding video, running multiple VM's, or doing those while gaming at the same time.

The problem is that hardly anyone actually encodes video, runs VM's etc, hence why Intel are still recommended/favoured, as they are faster in games.

Besides, this year we'll have 6 core mainstream Intel CPU's (coffeelake) which will annihilate even the 1800x in everything, due to Intel's 14nm++ process development, two additional cores and of course more cache.

But only if you don't have too much GPU grunt, right? gota keep that GPU performance in check or the big bad AMD CPU will eat sweet little Intel alive, eh?

I might like to upgrade my GPU someday without having to get a new CPU as well, if i go with Intel the for the same money i run a higher risk of being CPU bottlenecked.

This stuff is not rocket science, its elementary.

Oh and yeah thanks for the CoffeLake crystal ball prediction, i think i'll not wait for that then if its going to be that good, it'll be £700 guaranteed, cuz, well, Intel.

Yes i edit my post 13 times 5 minutes after i posted, i'm crap and retroactive thinking writer....

 

[DarkHorizon472]

Hmm, I don't see the point in all the fuss over AMD/Intel.

Right now Intel is still the best for gaming, which is what most people use their PC's for these days.

AMD is better for encoding video, running multiple VM's, or doing those while gaming at the same time.

The problem is that hardly anyone actually encodes video, runs VM's etc, hence why Intel are still recommended/favoured, as they are faster in games.

Besides, this year we'll have 6 core mainstream Intel CPU's (coffeelake) which will annihilate even the 1800x in everything, due to Intel's 14nm++ process development, two additional cores and of course more cache.

For me it was partly future proofing in having the 8 real cores on my 1700. It is now overclocked to 3.7Ghz and hits a max of 56c on the stock Wraith Spire Cooler playing BF1 etc. with very smooth gameplay.

Also it is a lot cheaper than the equivalent Intel CPU. I did consider a 7700k but in comparison for me it is too expensive for what it offers. coffeelake will likely be very expensive as well.

 

[Brazo]

Hmm seems like another Ryzen damage control thread...

 

[Dave2150]

Do you guys have inside knowledge or something? Everyone is spouting coffelake is going to destroy everything but we don't know **** yet. Even if it has kabylakes IPC and clockspeed Which I doubt it's still only 2 more cores and they will be stupidly expensive.

They will be $350. Do you want to know how I know? Lets see:

2600k -$317
3700k - $340
4700k - $350
4790k - $350
6700k - $350
7700k - $350
8700k - $350 (note that this will be the 6 core part)

It's not rocket science, intel are upgrading the top mainstream skew to 6 cores. So, imagine a 7700k with 6 cores, on an improved process, with a handy IGPU (awesome for troubleshooting). It will obliterate Ryzen and everything else.

I suspect clock speeds will be similar to the 7700k, possibly 100-200Mhz less if they want to keep it under 100W etc. All depends on how good the new 14nm++ process is.

 

[Rroff]

Its important to look at both ends of the spectrum really - while an oddity it is entirely possible a CPU could do very well with 720p gaming but fall apart at 1440p (or vice versa) say due to some scheduling issues, etc. and you have another issue when you are in the 100s of FPS that games can fall foul of things like power states, DPC latency, timer precision, etc. so again can change what the results are under other conditions and/or need further tweaking to get an even playing field.

 

[Dave2150]

For me it was partly future proofing in having the 8 real cores on my 1700. It is now overclocked to 3.7Ghz and hits a max of 56c on the stock Wraith Spire Cooler playing BF1 etc. with very smooth gameplay.

Also it is a lot cheaper than the equivalent Intel CPU. I did consider a 7700k but in comparison for me it is too expensive for what it offers. coffeelake will likely be very expensive as well.

The 7700k is £30 more than a Ryzen 1700. If you're just gaming, then the 7700k is the better CPU in my opinion. If you are encoding video, rendering, running multiple VM's etc then the 1700 would be the clear choice, but most people just play games, where clock speed and IPC trump everything.

By the time games actually take advantage of 8 cores, all current CPU's will be worthless. No PC game developer in their right mind would develop a game for 8 cores, when the majority still have a dual or quad core (check steam hardware survey for info). It will take many years for the % of users with a 6 or 8 core to increase, by which time all current cpu's will be antiques.

 

[AiiR]

Just bought a Ryzen 5 1600 for my GFs rig and at stock 3.3GHz it beats out my 4.6GHz 6700k in multithreaded performance. That's at £100 less and with a stock cooler. Gave it a quick bash at some games and performance with a GTX970 is very similar to what I had with the same GPU.

Intel's Kabylake i7's are undoubtedly better for gaming, but the percentage difference vs the price isn't worth it for most people. I'd rather have a R7 1700 than a 7700k right now.

 

[Brazo]

Until we get mainstream software that actually utilises more than 4 cores (and I don't mean benchmarks) then more than 4 cores is pointless whether they are intel or AMD flavoured. Yes a tiny percentage of people use specialist multi core software and if they want to save money Ryzen will definitely be the better bet, but until that time comes I'd rather have 4 elite troopers than 8 Boy Scouts.

Ryzen is far from the best for productivity in mainstream productivity software let alone gaming.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...1800X-Performance-907/#PhotoshopActionResults

 

[Rroff]

That is OK if you only do one thing at a time - I'm often running multiple VMs while doing stuff, etc. this 4 core / 8 thread i7 get a work out - 8 real cores or even 8 cores 16 threads wouldn't be entirely unwelcome sometimes.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

The 7700k is £30 more than a Ryzen 1700. If you're just gaming, then the 7700k is the better CPU in my opinion. If you are encoding video, rendering, running multiple VM's etc then the 1700 would be the clear choice, but most people just play games, where clock speed and IPC trump everything.

By the time games actually take advantage of 8 cores, all current CPU's will be worthless. No PC game developer in their right mind would develop a game for 8 cores, when the majority still have a dual or quad core (check steam hardware survey for info). It will take many years for the % of users with a 6 or 8 core to increase, by which time all current cpu's will be antiques.

For older games you would be right but for newer games such as bf1 this is no longer the case as it takes advantage of what is available . As with the move from dual to quad cores years ago this will only continue especially given ryzens competitive pricing, the 6 core ryzen is a very good deal. To give you an idea my gpu is maxed out but my cpu runs at about 30% giving plenty of head room for future upgrades which partly why i chose it.

 

[AiiR]

Until we get mainstream software that actually utilises more than 4 cores (and I don't mean benchmarks) then more than 4 cores is pointless whether they are intel or AMD flavoured. Yes a tiny percentage of people use specialist multi core software and if they want to save money Ryzen will definitely be the better bet, but until that time comes I'd rather have 4 elite troopers than 8 Boy Scouts.

Ryzen is far from the best for productivity in mainstream productivity software let alone gaming.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...1800X-Performance-907/#PhotoshopActionResults

We're seeing programs optimised for quad cores and maxing them out, leaving very little to do anything else. Sure if all you're doing is playing a game then quad cores are fine, but I remember playing Overwatch and my frame rates would be cut by around 30 if I opened anything like Youtube or Twitch due to the CPU being strained.

 

[Journey]

A huge amount of the problems comes from people forgetting to compare the sheer value for money you get going for a Ryzen combo vs. the Intel equivalents.

Lets look at the obvious ones

• All the CPU's are unlocked, so if you wish to overclock you can.
• No special expensive chipset required to do said overclocking, decent B350 board are £75+
• Ryzen 5 1600 can be had from £180, if you want to compare that to the Intel equivalent it's a 6600K or a 7600K for around £225, so roughly 25% more expensive.
• The AM4 platform will not be replaced for at least 3 years, so you know that an upgrade in future will cost you less. Anyone take a guess when 1151 is going EOL??

On the face of it Intel still makes a good argument, but you are not getting 25% more performance from the Intel for your 25% cost increase, and you lose 2 cores and 6 extra threads on top for future software that may use them. Adding £70-90 to your GPU budget pushes you from an RX580/GTX 1060 to a GTX 1070, which is what you save by going towards the AM4 platform, and not a single person on these forums is stupid enough to say that a GTX 1070 with an R5 1600, would not be better than a GTX 1060 with the Intel 7600K/Z170/Z270 setup.

If people are convinced that Ryzen is bad because it is not beating out Intel at everything, and then the same people on the next thread saying how they use a GTX 1080 Ti at 4K, then they are just plain daft.

If anyone would care to put a comparable Ryzen vs. Intel build together and link them, that would be good.

 

[ljt]

Exactly! People seem to dismiss the value for money variable that is important to a lot of people.

It's the same mentality in the GPU section too. Some people just can't seem to fathom that COST is a massive factor to most people.

In my latest upgrade I was on a i5 3570k 4c/4t cpu. The nearest upgrade on intels side with at the very least more threads was the i7 7700k at £350.

To me £350 on a 4c/8t cpu for games is ridiculously overpriced. So I went with a AMD R5 1600 which will play the exact same games perfectly fine for over £100 less. I also get the added benefit of 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads over a £350 intel cpu, and saved money in the process.

We are not all after the bleeding edge performance when it comes to playing video games. If a product offers 90% of the performance of the 7700k for less than 75% of the cost then I'll take that every time

 

[triss]

How many of us when gaming just run a game on our pc when playing like the reviews? Most people i know also have email,chat programs chrome etc running which when you have more cores/threads means you maintain those ingame fps better then a cpu with less cores thats already fully loaded