Modern day CPU reviews and what is wrong with them.

haszek · 9 May 2017 at 14:18

ubersonic said:
I never run anything in the background when gaming, I have Whatsapp/Discord on the left monitor and Chrome on the right monitor (maybe playing music or He-Man episodes from Youtube) but the centre screen is for games and nothing but games (unless I'm watching a film).

So other monitors are powered by 2 other PCs?

ubersonic · 9 May 2017 at 14:41

haszek said:
So other monitors are powered by 2 other PCs?

haszek · 9 May 2017 at 14:43

ubersonic said:

But other guys are right "no one" is incorrect ...majority

The thing is, looking at the CPU testing procedure...it's designed to show the highest differences (when game is definitely CPU bound, that's why 1080p/720p), not where majority players are. Only this one situation, high fps gaming (what maybe for 1% of players?).
But if you compare it with GPU testing procedure...all new graphic cards are tested in few situations 1080p, 1440 and 4k. So that everyone can see how it's gonna look like in their situation (including majority). However 1080p should not be included in testing procedure (based on CPU "gaming testing") because it's not gonna show true power of the GPU, so it's irrelevant (like all reviewers say now about testing CPU in any other gaming scenario especially 4k).

Based on the CPU procedure to keep it consistent, for GPU testing only 4K should be tested with maximum details etc, as this is the only certain situation where PC will be GPU bound.

Unfortunately that is not the case but many people/readers thing it is.

It's true ryzen has weaker IPC, everyone knows this, but does it really matter if you won't see it? Conclusions to most reviews claim yes it does matter as Ryzen is no good for gaming...

N19h7m4r3 · 9 May 2017 at 17:07

Rroff said:
I take my gaming relatively seriously - don't like anything that might kick in and degrade performance or as occasionally happens throw up a alert box infront of the game, etc. with the way Windows works even with 24324234 cores if something gets busy it can still kill system performance anyhow - especially if it is crashing IO heavily in sporadic bursts.

So do I and all my friends; I'm in a Server First Mythic raiding guild in WoW; and it would be impossible to get near that level only playing with the game running.
Discord/Vent/TS, spreadsheets for tactics, and guides, Browser tabs, and streaming/recording software running so we can look over footage from different player PoVs to see what went wrong, where we can improve and more.
Kills are then turned into videos as well, and uploaded.

Many people do similar things, and even if they're not that "into it", they'll likely still have music playing, browser tabs, or more running while gaming.
I find my 5820K can get a little choked during heavy sessions, and an 8-core would be a welcome respite.

Some modern games already push 4 threaded CPUs to their limits, and now with Ryzen R5, I really don't see why the 1600 and 1600X aren't even listed on some of these so-called "Best CPU" lists from some reviewers.

Rroff · 9 May 2017 at 17:23

N19h7m4r3 said:
So do I and all my friends; I'm in a Server First Mythic raiding guild in WoW; and it would be impossible to get near that level only playing with the game running.
Discord/Vent/TS, spreadsheets for tactics, and guides, Browser tabs, and streaming/recording software running so we can look over footage from different player PoVs to see what went wrong, where we can improve and more.
Kills are then turned into videos as well, and uploaded.

Many people do similar things, and even if they're not that "into it", they'll likely still have music playing, browser tabs, or more running while gaming.
I find my 5820K can get a little choked during heavy sessions, and an 8-core would be a welcome respite.

Some modern games already push 4 threaded CPUs to their limits, and now with Ryzen R5, I really don't see why the 1600 and 1600X aren't even listed on some of these so-called "Best CPU" lists from some reviewers.

Quite aware of it - I've played many MMOs including Eve Online - was just responding to the comments that were dismissive that people still shut everything down before gaming which isn't that uncommon even today.

While it isn't for everyone - some might not want or have space for, etc. multiple systems - when doing stuff like that I usually have a laptop and/or additional PC and additional monitor, etc. hooked into my KVM and possible to use separately so as to remove anything from the gaming system that might impact on the game.

voidshatter · 9 May 2017 at 20:18

So many games are still bottleneck'ed by single thread performance and single GPU performance, especially those console-ports (the golden ages of SLI/CrossfireX has passed due to game developers concentrate on consoles to make money because they want to avoid publishing the games too early on PC platforms prone to cracks/hacks). Yes, in the long run Ryzen 1700 should be more future-proof than i7 7700K, but now there are just so many applications where single thread is of number one priority. As a programmer I can assure that multi-thread programming requires lots of extra efforts for debugging and maintenance.

Martini1991 · 9 May 2017 at 20:29

voidshatter said:
So many games are still bottleneck'ed by single thread performance and single GPU performance, especially those console-ports (the golden ages of SLI/CrossfireX has passed due to game developers concentrate on consoles to make money because they want to avoid publishing the games too early on PC platforms prone to cracks/hacks). Yes, in the long run Ryzen 1700 should be more future-proof than i7 7700K, but now there are just so many applications where single thread is of number one priority. As a programmer I can assure that multi-thread programming requires lots of extra efforts for debugging and maintenance.

I don't disagree, but that said, Zen isn't the same compromise core for core that the prior AMD chips were.
I went from an i7 4770K to an AMD 1700 and I'm happy with the upgrade.

AMD can no longer be ignored just on their core for core performance.

voidshatter · 9 May 2017 at 20:32

Martini1991 said:
I don't disagree, but that said, Zen isn't the same compromise core for core that the prior AMD chips were.
I went from an i7 4770K to an AMD 1700 and I'm happy with the upgrade.

AMD can no longer be ignored just on their core for core performance.

True. With stable 7x24 overclocking taken into consideration, for single-thread 7700K can be something like 20% faster than Ryzen 1700, but for multi-thread Ryzen 1700 can be something like 100% faster than 7700K.

The reason why I haven't switched is because I don't want to replace my Z170 motherboard which would require re-activation of Windows 10.

Martini1991 · 9 May 2017 at 20:35

voidshatter said:
True. With stable 7x24 overclocking taken into consideration, for single-thread 7700K can be something like 20% faster than Ryzen 1700, but for multi-thread Ryzen 1700 can be something like 100% faster than 7700K.

The reason why I haven't switched is because I don't want to replace my Z170 motherboard which would require re-activation of Windows 10.

A bit of a none point.
As long you link the W10 key with your Windows account, you'll be okay, it requires a few extra clicks, but you can activate the same key with another motherboard/platform.

voidshatter · 9 May 2017 at 20:36

Martini1991 said:
A bit of a none point.
As long you link the W10 key with your Windows account, you'll be okay, it requires a few extra clicks, but you can activate the same key with another motherboard/platform.

I knew about that but never tried, as I hate linking my Windows 10 with my Live ID. I like keeping everything as local as possible.

gavinh87 · 9 May 2017 at 21:24

voidshatter said:
I knew about that but never tried, as I hate linking my Windows 10 with my Live ID. I like keeping everything as local as possible.

Ok......... Tin foil hats needed or something else??

Disco_P · 9 May 2017 at 22:32

gavinh87 said:
Ok......... Tin foil hats needed or something else??

I've always used a local account. Saves time and i use my live account for emails, nothing else.

MrWhippy · 10 May 2017 at 12:10

voidshatter said:
I knew about that but never tried, as I hate linking my Windows 10 with my Live ID. I like keeping everything as local as possible.

You can unlink it again after the reactivation.

humbug · 10 May 2017 at 14:18

At last.... someone recommending Ryzen CPU's, and its Tech Report. http://techreport.com/review/31846/the-tech-report-system-guide-may-2017-edition/2

All Rounder: Ryzen 1600X

It should be of little surprise that the topic of the day in the CPU arena is AMD's Ryzen 5 lineup. Our benchmarking revealed that the Ryzen 5 1600X is a great all-around performer at its price point. This six-core, 12-thread chip challenges Intel's Core i5-7600K in gaming smoothness, and its copious threads are great for the times where you may need to do some serious work. Sure, there's just no catching the mighty Core i7-7700K when it comes to gaming prowess, but AMD has produced solid competitors for nearly every other price point.

Budget: Pentium G4560

In this price range, we think Intel's Pentium G4560 is a great buy. Its healthy 3.5GHz clock speed should be brisk enough for most, and its Hyper-Threading support can boost performance in multithreaded tasks. It'll also appear as a quad-core CPU to games that require one. This Pentium is a good choice for non-gamers, too, since it has basic integrated graphics. For $64, it's hard to find anything to complain about with this chip.

Sweet Spot: Ryzen 1500X

At last. Intel's CPUs dominated the Sweet Spot chart for longer than I care to remember, but that ends today. The Ryzen 5 1500X and 1600X are a nice one-two-punch combo, seeing as they offer solid performance for prices very similar to their direct competitors from Intel.

Compared to the Core i5-7500, the Ryzen 5 1500X has SMT support, so it boasts eight logical threads from its four cores. It also offers unlocked multipliers for those who'd like to overclock, and it comes with a nice cooler that's up to the task of some tweaking. The Core i5-7500 may offer a bit more performance in some tasks, but it's also a bit more expensive. We'd be OK building with either of these CPUs at their price points.

High End: Ryzen 7

Thanks to their copious core counts and aggressive prices, AMD's Ryzen 7 CPUs have taken over our higher-end CPU suggestions. Even if these chips' prices overlap a bit with our Sweet Spot parts this time around, don't take that as a sign of equivalence. As we've been saying, "high end" in this context means "multithreaded power," not "gaming champion." If you're not sure whether your workload requires eight cores and 16 threads, we'd suggest taking a look at the in-depth tests in our Ryzen review and picking the chip that best fits your needs. For gaming alone, that chip might be a Kaby Lake quad-core, not a Ryzen 7 eight-core part.

Disco_P · 10 May 2017 at 14:33

Techspot have been pretty on the ball with the recommendations too.
http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/

mmj_uk · 10 May 2017 at 17:22

The trouble is that for years AMD/Bulldozer/Piledriver fans have been saying that low resolution gaming benchmarks are not relevant to everyday usage because everybody games at higher resolutions.

It's funny that now AMD have competitive cores and higher clock speeds to boot benchmarking games at 720P with low details is suddenly the best way to benchmark CPU's because high resolutions don't show the difference that is only now in AMD's favour.

I've always argued that benchmarking games at low resolutions/low detail is the only way to judge CPU performance without GPU bottlenecks distorting results so no flip flopping here.

DragonQ · 10 May 2017 at 17:33

mmj_uk said:
The trouble is that for years AMD/Bulldozer/Piledriver fans have been saying that low resolution gaming benchmarks are not relevant to everyday usage because everybody games at higher resolutions.

It's funny that now AMD have competitive cores and higher clock speeds to boot benchmarking games at 720P with low details is suddenly the best way to benchmark CPU's because high resolutions don't show the difference that is only now in AMD's favour.

I've always argued that benchmarking games at low resolutions/low detail is the only way to judge CPU performance without GPU bottlenecks distorting results so no flip flopping here.

Not sure what you mean, most people on these forums at least seem to to think that these 720p low quality tests are a joke. Benchmarking at low resolutions with low details may "help judge CPU performance" but there are plenty of other benchmarks that do that. People are interesting in gaming benchmarks to see how the CPU performs in those games, at settings they are likely to use either now or in the future.

humbug · 10 May 2017 at 18:19

DragonQ said:
Not sure what you mean, most people on these forums at least seem to to think that these 720p low quality tests are a joke. Benchmarking at low resolutions with low details may "help judge CPU performance" but there are plenty of other benchmarks that do that. People are interesting in gaming benchmarks to see how the CPU performs in those games, at settings they are likely to use either now or in the future.

In which case there is no or very little difference between these CPU's, all these reviews, Toms Hardware, Tech Power Up ecte.... have the Ryzen CPU performing almost the same as the Intel CPU, aside from a couple of games where the game needs to understand Ryzen better, like Tomb Raider, even when you add all of the Avr FPS together the overall difference is still only 10%.

So I added Toms Hardware Ryzen review FPS together to come up with an overall score....

The scores are 1075 to the 7600K and 979 to the 1600X, If the 1600X is at 100% the 7600K is at 111%, so 11% to the 7600K.
Now because the 7600K is actually a little more expensive than the 1600X 'and the Ryzen 1600 is a lot cheaper while being the same CPU' Toms used the same priced i5 7500 as the "best CPU" in that category instead.

So adding up all the 7500 scores it comes to 929 points, now compare THAT to the 1600X which scored 979, yup the 1600X is 5% faster than the 7500, but because the 1600X is $30 more expensive the 7500 won "the best CPU" :rolleyes:

Had it been up against the 7600K it would have lost as that is more expensive, had the i5 7500 been up against the 1600 (none X) the 7500 would have lost because the 1600 is the same price and faster, this is why Toms Hardware use these odd ball locked Intel CPU's and made a whole lot of "games only- no overclocking" disclaimers, because they are just cheap enough to make sense against the Ryzen chips, if you ignore overclocking and everything outside gaming.
Its an obvious stitch-up.

Besides all of that the games which they used at the res and settings that they used there is actually no performance difference between them, take out Tomb Raider and there is literally nothing in it.

This is why when you test for CPU gaming performance you make the CPU work for it, if all the work is on the GPU then you would not see any difference in performance.
Aside from Tomb Raider there is no performance difference between these CPU's in Toms benchmarks.

If you make the CPU work for it, this happens.......

Why does that even matter ^^^^ ? because pepole upgrade thier GPU more than the CPU, GPU's get faster... so to keep up with future GPU performance CPU need to be faster.

Funny how the tables turn, on how to review CPU's the pro Intel argument is now what the pro AMD argument used to be!

Right now AMD are making better gaming CPU's than Intel, not just that, AMD are making better CPU's than Intel full stop.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-5-1500x-cpu,review-33880.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-core-i3-7350k,review-33797-2.html

Disco_P · 10 May 2017 at 18:48

I am (possibly was) a long time Tom's hardware reader and fan but that Best CPU thing was pure testicles.

For the GPUs that most people are using and buying on the games they actually play at the resolutions and framerates they play at, 7600K or 1600 are probably gonna perform about the same. But the ryzen is cheaper and the motherboards are cheaper too so that gives more money for other stuff like RGB mousemats :cool:

Plus then there is the future of the socket, games using more cores...

The i5 is just so hard to recommend.

mmj_uk · 10 May 2017 at 20:53

DragonQ said:
Not sure what you mean, most people on these forums at least seem to to think that these 720p low quality tests are a joke. Benchmarking at low resolutions with low details may "help judge CPU performance" but there are plenty of other benchmarks that do that. People are interesting in gaming benchmarks to see how the CPU performs in those games, at settings they are likely to use either now or in the future.

Benchmarking processors with games is a joke period, it was only really 100% accurate in the days of software rendering. Once you bring other more important factors (GPU) into the equation it ceases to be a processor benchmark, the only semi-reliable way to benchmark processors with games today is to remove as much load as possible from the GPU by reducing resolution/details as much as possible.

I've argued countless times during the AMD FX years that most gaming benchmarks where AMD faired well were simply heavily GPU bottlenecked only to be told that "everyday usage is all that matters" but now that the shoe is on the foot AMD users are echoing what I said, only when you remove the GPU from the equation is the CPU able to stretch its legs.