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

 

[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...

 

[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....

 

[humbug]

Intel are not going to price their new 6 core CPU the same as past 4 core CPU's, come on guys that really is wishful thinking.

When it arrives, eventually, IMO it will be £400+

 

[humbug]

Exactly this, I wish someone did a bigger review similar to the below video. Nobody is switching all other apps off in the background before gaming, temp monitors, rgb apps, chrome,twitch, yt or spotify, something else running on second screen, etc. You don't have to do encoding to see advantage of many cores.

The thing is there is no one review of real gaming situations and use of PC for gaming. What will happen even at this 1080p with gtx1080ti, when your 4core CPU is at 100% and you have other apps running? Which will drop more fps? the one with 100% used power or the one with 50%...

Sad is that majority of people have GPU on the lower end (rx460-480 level) and for them CPU doesn't matter in gaming, but they go to read reviews, look at the graph and assume that they have to have i7 7700 to have ultimate results in gaming.

The results of this were frankly predictable, really this just confirms a trend with current mainstream Intel CPU's, they don't really have enough threads, GPU's like the 1070/80 1080TI are so powerful that even when not running low res and settings those 4 core Intel chips are at the limits keeping up with the GPU muscle, so much so that as soon as you throw a few light tasks at them ontop of trying to keep pace with the GPU they can't handle it, meanwhile the £200 12 thread Ryzen 5 just yawns "yeah? what else, eh?"

 

[humbug]

I do personally as do many old school FPS gamers - when gaming I usually close spotify and many other programs, sometimes have the web browser open but most drop to low or no CPU use when they don't have focus. Personally if I was doing any streaming seriously I'd probably move to external hardware capture and a 2nd system for encoding, etc.

Many casual gamers I suspect don't and probably some more serious gamers.

I used to encode a gameply Videos for Youtube on AVS Video Editor and go play Battlefield 3 while doing it, this on the old FX8350, no problem.... its one ability i do miss about the old AMD chip, its about the only thing but the ability to play a AAA game while it was encoding a video in the background is real nice, i did try it on the i5 and oh.... oh.... lol it did not like it, noooo way! :O

 

[humbug]

Works okish on my i7 its one of the reasons I went for it over an i5 but I wouldn't choose to do that - probably not even on Ryzen (I'd still use a second system) but its nice that they have that capability for those that don't want or can't have a second system.

I would, Using your PC for more than just one thing at a time, what a concept.....

 

[humbug]

The 5820K has been below £300 a fair few times, I've seen them as low as £280.

You've seen them 50/£60 less than the 4770K?

£350 6 Core Intel's are not happening, stop looking at straws..... £400 at least.

 

[humbug]

I paid £259 for my 4770K and £269 for my 4970K.

Where have you been shopping? thats about £70 off list price.

 

[humbug]

No its not, UK release price is £269 for the 4770K. Price listed at top of review.

https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/1



4790K was £259:

https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/06/19/intel-core-i7-4790k-devil-s-canyon-review/1

Then the 8 thread i7's have gone up 40% since then....

That's really the price we should be comparing, the 7700K is £350, not £250.

Plus, with that level of 'Intel inflation' what makes you think the new 12 thread i7's would be priced like older 8 thread i7's? the 7700K has the same number of threads as the 4770K, Intel + some market forces still slapped £100 onto of its price.

 

[humbug]

@Razor Time You can say the same thing 3 times is a row but it still misses the point, they don't cost £250 today, they cost £350, you have to base your pricing on today, not 2013, we are not in 2013.

The cheapest 6 core Intel do right now is £430, it may come down to £400 when it comes to the mainstream platform, but don't bank on it as Intel have never lowerd the price per thread, this would be a first.

The 5820K was a blip, it didn't last, that too went up from £380 to £430 before going out of production, the 6800K just replaced it at the same price the 5820K ended.

 

[humbug]

Not technically true anymore, as the new Kaby Lake Pentiums now have 2c/2t.

The Pentium's are not i3's, they are i3's in the same way AMD's Athlon 860K is an FX-4300.... they ain't, for a start both have no L3, they are also missing several instruction sets.

The Pentium's are cheaper than the i3's because they are not i3's.

Edit... the G4400 is also 2C 2T.... https://ark.intel.com/products/88179/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G4400-3M-Cache-3_30-GHz
If thats what you are talking about?

 

[humbug]

Intel G4560, and for some reason you are showing 2c/2t. and it was 2c/4t

Edit: The difference between the i3 7100 and the Pentium G4560 is Optane support and TXE, and obviously the slightly lower clock speed.

Lets start from the top. you said:

Not technically true anymore, as the new Kaby Lake Pentiums now have 2c/2t

Is that a typo on your part? they are actually 2c 4t.

And the previous Pentium was also 2c 4t, yes?

So what was technically not true? they are both 4 threads, no?

The previous one being the G4400, the one i linked, which you just said has 4 threads.

 

[humbug]

I was referring to your quote of my post, for some reason it showed 2c/2t, not 2c/4t which is what I wrote.

Yes the older Skylake G4400 is 2c/2t, and the newer Kaby Lake Pentium is now the same as an i3 2c/4t. Pheewww.

The original correction was pointed at the person who said Intel have never reduced the cost of threads

This is the link, https://ark.intel.com/products/88179/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G4400-3M-Cache-3_30-GHz you said "Intel G4560, and for some reason you are showing 2c/2t"

Thats where the confusion started, the CPU in that link is not the G4560 its the G4400.
When you said earlier.... "Not technically true anymore, as the new Kaby Lake Pentiums now have 2c/2t" i assumed you meant, well, just what you said, that was a typo on your part and because that Typo was "2t" the Intel-ark link for the G4400 also being 2t...... you can see what happened here....

 

[humbug]

Of course Pound pricing matters, our currency is in pounds..... ^^^^

There are 2c 4t Pentium which makes your statement incorrect humbug.

Also. Dollar pricing matters, pound pricing doesn't.

Good Grief, no, i know, read above you ^^^^

 

[humbug]

The 2c 4t Pentium were introduced cheaper than the i3's. Which means they lowered the price entry point for 4 threads. This goes against what you said.

The Pentiums are cheaper because they are not i3's.

Given that we are not expecting Intel's 6 core i7 to be striped out of L3 and some instruction sets compared with the 4 core i7's those semantics are really just playing on semantics.

 

[humbug]

You're the one who said Intel have never lowered the price for more threads. They have.

You're the one changing the goal posts when you've been caught making up your own history.

Really? Your talking to me about Goal Posts? Intel are not going to make a 12 thread Pentium. your the one moving goal posts, its not going to happen.

And by the way, The Pentium was not a cheaper i3, it was a replacement for the Celeron, that type of chip from Intel have always existed, they just changed the name of it. It was there before the i3....

 

[humbug]

What even is this.

They lowered the price point of 4 threads.
It's that simple. You said they never have.

You're then arguing semantics.

By striping performance and functionality out, its a different CPU, you are playing on semantics, you are right but and i should have know you would you would find away like this to argue just for the sake of argument.

You are off the left field with this crap, we are talking about the price of 6 core i7's, 2 core Celeron replacements don't come into it, unless you are saying Intel will strip out the L3 ecte... to make them cheaper, you're not, that would be daft.

You are not actually suggesting Intel will strip the L3 out of i7's, so don't use that yard stick, i would say it makes you look confused but i know you know exactly what you are doing.

 

[humbug]

Spoiler: atempt #4

All I have done is post up the correct pricing for chips you seemed to think were more expensive than they really were ie the 4770K. I have also pointed out that prices recently have risen but in some part in on the mainstream platform its not Intel's doing but the supply chain.

As for the 5820k is spent most of its life around the £300 mark or less and only rose in price when it became EOL and replaced by the more expensive 6800k.


https://pricespy.co.uk/product.php?pu=2782208

I picked up my 6800K for a touch under £400 from ocuk at the beginning of the year and it can be had by a reputable seller for under £400 if you so wish. The 7700k can be had for £320-325, yes you can pay more but its always like this with hardware, shop about.

Yes prices have gone up and its not great, no denying that. As for what Intel will charge for the 6 core mainstream platform I don't think anyone knows, but its probably not going to be more than what they are charging now for the 6800k and might even be around what the 7700K is. No one knows and its not really worth arguing about, do that when it happens mate.

Correct for the past, we are not talking about the past, these chips have yet to launch.

We live in a very different climate now. for a start the £ to $ ratio is not 1.7 anymore.

 

[humbug]

The pound is well down, so in the past 100 pound was like 145 dollars

Whereas now is 129, previously this year its been 120.

So that all affects us without official price rises.

Ryzen for example has recently benefitted from a better exchange rate, albeit not as much as it would had ryzen launched before June 2016

Yes, hopefully it will get better once this election is out of the way....