My own 3770K vs. R7 1700 games comparisons

[steve258]

*** 14/03/2017 Added SMT off results***

Made the jump from 3770k to 1700 couple days ago. So far the gaming results are better than I expected, average framerate is generally just a few fps difference from my 3770k at 4.7Ghz. This is with my 1700 running at 3.9ghz ram at 2933 cl15. So basically the gaming performance remains the same but I also now have a huge multithreaded advantage.

R7 1700 3.9ghz 16Gb DDR4 2933 CL15
Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3
GTX 1070 at 1947 core 4000 mem

3770K was running at 4.7Ghz with 16Gb DDR3 at 1866mhz CL10, Same GTX1070 of course.

Here are the game results that I tested, all at max possible settings at 1080p and 2x smaa/2x TXAA where applicable. I also included stock 1700 stock results for the games that I've benched. Hope this helps:

Heaven Benchmark:

3770K 4.7: min. 9.2 avg. 122.8 max: 270
1700 3.85 (forgot to rerun at 3.9): min. 32.6 avg. 121.7 max: 257.4

R7 1700 3.0 2133 cl15: avg. 115.8

Rise of the Tomb Raider:

3770K 4.7:
Mountain Peak 100.96 (min. 48.09 max 168.12)
Syria 68.82 (min. 26.42 max 99.84)
Geothermal 74.91 (min. 50.90 max 108.61)
Overall 82.32

1700 3.9:
Mountain Peak 101.32 (min. 49.11 max 172.23)
Syria 70.50 (min. 25.42 max 92)
Geothermal 71.32 (min. 41.37 max 99.17)
Overall 81.67

1700 3.9 SMT off:
Mountain Peak 102.67 (min. 38.07 max 144.98)
Syria 69.71 (min. 27.64 max 86.47)
Geothermal 72.05 (min. 35.61 max 93.35)
Overall 82.30

R7 1700 3.0 2133 cl15: Overall 69.49

Far Cry Primal:

3770K 4.7: min. 63 avg. 74 max: 81
1700 3.9 : min. 57 avg. 72 max: 83

1700 3.9 SMT off: min. 60 avg. 73 max: 84

R7 1700 3.0 2133 cl15: avg. 63

Rainbow Six Siege:

3770K 4.7: Overall min. 62.8 avg. 90.4 max: 139.9
1700 3.9 : Overall min. 63.6 avg. 91.3 max: 131.3

1700 3.9 SMT off: Overall min. 65.6 avg. 91.2 max: 128.1

Dirt Rally:

3770K 4.7: min. 71.98 avg. 94.66 max: 127.31
1700 3.9 : min. 72 avg. 93.89 max: 125.52

1700 3.9 SMT off: min. 71.94 avg. 93.39 max: 123.50

R7 1700 3.0 2133 cl15: avg. 92.81



As you can see from the above games, the average frames in these situations are within negligible level. So the conclusion is same as others have said really, that if you mostly play older titles that favours 4 cores or less, especially when you are running 144hz or higher refresh rate where the max fps really does count. Then the older gen i7 still have the raw power to really drive the fps. if you play newer titles at higher resolution when GPU matters more then you'll find the rysen, overclocked at least, will not dissapoint. But it has to be overclocked to really shine.

Sorry no 640x480 benches

***14/03/2017*** With a relatively modest GTX1070 it seems the SMT off performance increase in games is minimal at best, not really worth turning off SMT for. Bar the most powerful GPUs in SLI/Xfire configuration I doubt in most scenarios you will notice any difference.

 

[Vimes]

Thanks for doing that

Have you been able to test anything to show that huge multithreading advantage you mention....?
I used to have a 3770k and found it a pretty amazing chip at 4.5Ghz, although I didn't feel that I gained much with my 6700k at 4.5Ghz.

It would be interesting to see if you have tested any applications which could show the Ryzen shining over that of the older gen, but still very capable, i7.

 

[old gamer]

im making the switch from a 3770k to a 1700 myself and to be honest im not expecting any difference with gaming, i just want something new to play about with

 

[steve258]

Have you been able to test anything to show that huge multithreading advantage you mention....?

Hi

Nothing outside of synthetic benches unfortunately, realbench shows huge improvement in heavy multitasking and encoding scores:

3770K

R7 1700:

Nothing else I use so far that really stresses all cores, apart from the odd handbrake works. Although I had a quick go at watch dogs 2 yesterday and I was surprised to find that CPU usage hits 90%+ across all 16 threads

3770K is still very capable no doubt but rysen has been the most exciting thing in a long while and got me itching again I was expecting gaming performance to be worse tbh from all the reviews so I was pleasantly surprised that it keeps up this well.

 

[Darrensen]

Thanks very much for doing this. A very interesting test.

Great to see 3770k holding it's own, but it'll be interesting to see when Ryzen gets optimised.

 

[Vimes]

Thanks again for doing that.

I can understand that synthetic benchmarks have some value but what applications, for the multithreading aspect of improvements over the 3770k, have improved significantly, or not, would be good to see. Whether such applications can as yet take advantage of what the Ryzen might potentially offer I don't know.

Holding its own against a heavily overclocked 3770k is somewhat comforting but also not stellar considering the generational differences and, perhaps, my expectations. Then again I felt that regarding the incremental changes from my 3770k to the 6700k.

As the Ryzen platform matures it will be interesting to watch its development.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

Nice comparisons. Interesting to see the much vaunted increased minimums for Ryzen are not there?

I take it they are very much game specific?

 

[~>Dg<~]

Thanks very much for doing this. A very interesting test.

Great to see 3770k holding it's own, but it'll be interesting to see when Ryzen gets optimised.

well not really.its going to be about the same.most games was slightly behind so realistically a small improvement will put it on par oc with a i7 3770k.

 

[Martini1991]

Frankly for me this is just positive for the 1700.

 

[spoony77]

Thanks for this - It's very helpful when contemplating upgrade paths... :Thumbs-up:

 

[Overlag]

Thank you for doing this, This is the move im wanting to do. 3770k to a 1700.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Thanks again for doing that.

I can understand that synthetic benchmarks have some value but what applications, for the multithreading aspect of improvements over the 3770k, have improved significantly, or not, would be good to see. Whether such applications can as yet take advantage of what the Ryzen might potentially offer I don't know.

Holding its own against a heavily overclocked 3770k is somewhat comforting but also not stellar considering the generational differences and, perhaps, my expectations. Then again I felt that regarding the incremental changes from my 3770k to the 6700k.

As the Ryzen platform matures it will be interesting to watch its development.

At college were getting a delivery of Ryzen workstations next week (don't know spec yet) so I'll put them through their paces on the Adobe suite / 3DSMax / Blender / Visual Stuido / Compliation / Unreal engine over the next couple of weeks and report back. We also use the machines for Rift / Vive / Hololens dev work so I'll ask the game devs how they are finding the new machines as well.

Current machines are i5 4600's so should be an interesting comparison.

 

[Vimes]

At college were getting a delivery of Ryzen workstations next week (don't know spec yet) so I'll put them through their paces on the Adobe suite / 3DSMax / Blender / Visual Stuido / Compliation / Unreal engine over the next couple of weeks and report back. We also use the machines for Rift / Vive / Hololens dev work so I'll ask the game devs how they are finding the new machines as well.

Current machines are i5 4600's so should be an interesting comparison.

It should indeed be a good comparative test and useful if you could post your findings.

Thanks for that

 

[steve258]

Holding its own against a heavily overclocked 3770k is somewhat comforting but also not stellar considering the generational differences and, perhaps, my expectations. Then again I felt that regarding the incremental changes from my 3770k to the 6700k

True, True. But if you think about it, 4.7 vs 3.9, the IPC for these zen chips are pretty darn impressive, the only problem they have is that they don't clock very well. But that will improve with next iterations. I won't be surprised to see zen+ with 10% increase in IPC and oc to 4.4/4.5Ghz quite comfortably All speculations of course.

Yes I know it's only GTX1070 and if you slap in a 1080TI/pascal TitanXXX SLI then the gap will widen. But in these particular situations, with graphics card that a lot more of us will likely own, and for those of us who are still hanging onto SB/IB rigs, it's a genuinly viable upgrade. And the gaming performance certainly isn't all doom and gloom like you see in the reviews.

 

[Vimes]

True, True. But if you think about it, 4.7 vs 3.9, the IPC for these zen chips are pretty darn impressive, the only problem they have is that they don't clock very well. But that will improve with next iterations. I won't be surprised to see zen+ with 10% increase in IPC and oc to 4.4/4.5Ghz quite comfortably All speculations of course.

Yes I know it's only GTX1070 and if you slap in a 1080TI/pascal TitanXXX SLI then the gap will widen. But in these particular situations, with graphics card that a lot more of us will likely own, and for those of us who are still hanging onto SB/IB rigs, it's a genuinly viable upgrade. And the gaming performance certainly isn't all doom and gloom like you see in the reviews.

I'm just pleased that AMD have managed to deliver something to the market which is worthy of consideration over that of an Intel build.
I would hope that would only continue to mature and develop both in hardware and software.

If it does whether you buy Intel or AMD it has to be a win win.

 

[Chrisc]

I have the same board as you. . if its not too much to ask, could you explain the voltage options on the board? it seems you have to manually enter how much you want/allow the board to go over the base 1.2v?

 

[Drollic]

Thanks for this. Be good to do a retest once the patches hit shortly.

 

[steve258]

I have the same board as you. . if its not too much to ask, could you explain the voltage options on the board? it seems you have to manually enter how much you want/allow the board to go over the base 1.2v?

Yes that's the gist of it. The offset value is the amount in addition to your CPU default vcore, which varies between CPUs. So an offset value of +0.130 on a default 1.2v CPU will bring the vcore upto 1.330v.

 

[Chrisc]

Yes that's the gist of it. The offset value is the amount in addition to your CPU default vcore, which varies between CPUs. So an offset value of +0.130 on a default 1.2v CPU will bring the vcore upto 1.330v.

Awesome thanks, before i have a play around with it, is there an option to disable the boost, like you had with the old FX processors? or if i change the multiplier to read 3.6ghz will it just sit at that frequency?

 

[AthlonXP1800]

Interesting results but you missed 1 thing. You forget to take notes of temps!

I want you to included temps so we can see how both 3770K and Ryzen 7 1700 doing with temps at stock and OC.

What cooler do you use?

I could think of try OC my 3770K first time soon after read all delid tools reviews then I can have first experience with 3770K then months later maybe I could do same with 7700K to get lower temps if I find 7700K stock die paste temp too high.

I benchmarked Rise of Tomb Raider with stock 3770K, 16GB DDR3 and GTX 1070 and got overall score of 71.21 fps.