New build ryzen 1800x vs 8700k

[DarkHorizon472]

you just know that guy has saved this screenshot waiting to shine its not humbug, i give you a pass

You asked for that

 

[lltfdaniel]

Well yeah, I did have it waiting to shine plus you did ask for it.

Now this is what benchmarks don't tell you, as you can see 1600 ryzen stomps 7600k in crysis 3.

If that was the case then it explains what ever benchmark dg looked/studied at.

Otherwise he would say 1600 beats a 7600k and both are overclocked.

If you look at frame time(in the picture bottom right) you can see how much of a lead the 1600 has over the 7600k.

Correct me if i'm wrong, thanks.

 

[Yaayuh!]

What I found is obvious with Ryzen is how much smoother games are. Average and max FPS in benchmarks are more often than not, better on Intel, but this doesn't show you the entire story.

I would advise people look closer at the minimum FPS and frame times to get a good example of what Ryzen can offer. This isn't always the case, but certainly something that I have experienced with several builds both Intel and Ryzen in the past year.

Certainly something to take into consideration, but is just a small part of deciding which platform to go for. But my 2 cents on gaming experience.

 

[wam7]

look at the whole and a ryzen chip in gaming is about the same as a 7600k i5. 8700k is miles in front. it will be in front of even the new ryzen.if its a hundred difference do it.

check the benchmarks.numerous ones.8700k is top of the tree in literally everything.you will also see i5 7600k mostly beating even the 1800x on a whole though its about the same as the i5.which compared to the coffeelake chips sucks.

First of all, I've been seeing your posts for quite a while and you hardly ever seem to use capital letters at all and often miss out the 'space' after a full stop, i.e. "...the benchmarks.numerous ones.8700k is top of..." Why is this? It makes reading what you write a little taxing at times. Well at least your shift key was working when you wrote your name 'Dg'.

On your point, I would tend to agree that the high single thread speed in combination with 6 cores makes the 8700k very compelling. Unless you are mainly doing content creation with well threaded programs then it would be one I would look to get.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

DF actually recommended the Ryzen 5 1600 over the Core i5 7600K IIRC.

Ryzen 5 vs Core i5: the Digital Foundry verdict

There are now two great gaming CPU lines available for the core gamer. The overwhelming weight of the data points to Ryzen 5 as the best buy in this market segment, specifically the non-X 1600 model. It's especially compelling against the only two locked i5 chips we'd consider for gaming: the locked Core i5 7500 and 7600. Although it's a touch more expensive, you can overclock any Ryzen chip and you can run them with faster memory, 'luxuries' that are only permitted with the more expensive 7600K and top-tier Intel motherboards. And for its part, the once unassailable unlocked i5 K chip - beloved of gamers for so long - is overwhelmed in more complex gaming workloads by the wider Ryzen 5 six-core processors, while non-gaming tasks see the full weight of those extra cores and threads put to good use.

The bad news for AMD - if you can call it that - is that the 1600X is looking rather superfluous based on just how good the base 1600 is. Even at stock speeds, the performance differential isn't massive, and the 1600 overclocks well enough to beat stock 1600X performance. Our 1600 sample may not overclock to 4.0GHz like the 1600X does, but with a solid 3.8GHz on the supplied cooler (which you don't get with the X), we're happy to trade the 200MHz deficit in performance for the money we save. The only sticking point is that that some of those savings you make on your Ryzen system should be invested into faster RAM, with the aim being to hit circa 3000MHz or higher. It's a point made in many Ryzen articles, but to be fair, as our Core i5 7600K review demonstrates, fast RAM is a must for getting the most out of an Intel chip too.

Remarkably, Ryzen 5's performance overall is so good, it even makes an eight-core Ryzen 7 purchase look questionable if gaming is your focus - there's a very curious lack of scalability between six and eight cores based on the 1600X vs 1700 4.0GHz overclock results in the table above and there's even a scenario (Far Cry, of course) where six cores at 4.0GHz offers a slightly faster result than eight at the same frequency. Ryzen 5 offering so much here is actually a double-edged sword: it's good in the short term because you're getting excellent performance for your money, but it relies on significant improvements in later revisions of the Zen core to offer a tangible upgrade path if and when you feel the need to improve CPU performance.


This is less of an issue for Intel. Core i5 upgrades to i7 of course, offering a big chunk of extra overhead, but with the news that eighth-gen Core processors won't run on existing Z170 or Z270 motherboards, a quad-core i7 is as far as you can go. That's fair enough, except we're days/weeks away from Intel confirming its own mainstream six-core i5s and i7s. How those new 'Coffee Lake' Intel processors are going to shake out in terms of value is anyone's guess right now, but certainly based on the performance of the enthusiast Core i7 7800, a keenly-priced six-core chip would restore the balance of power in Intel's favour.

But with the CPUs available to buy right now, Ryzen 5 1600 is our choice as the best mainstream gaming CPU on the market. And that's a simply phenomenal achievement - since the debut of the Core i5 2500K back in 2011, Intel's i5 K chips have earned their place at the heart of millions of users' gaming PCs. The Ryzen alternative is faster where it needs to be, better suited to more modern game engines, and comes across overall as a kind of hybrid of i5 and four-core/six-core i7s depending on how its resources are deployed. This is AMD at its best: innovative, disruptive and bringing about radical change in a static market, with a simply superb alternative product.

 

[gavinh87]

Yeah I'd recommend the 1600 over the 7600K, however I'd get the 8400 over either.
Major thread derail.

 

[lltfdaniel]

DF actually recommended the Ryzen 5 1600 over the Core i5 7600K IIRC.

Right...would he recommended a 1800x costing around 250 to 300 over an 8700k costing 360 quid.

Before I get slapped performance between the two is tiny.

At the 1800x price point you can get a 8600k at 240 quid.

So if you was to pick between 8600k and 1800x, I'd pick the 1800x.

 

[gavinh87]

Right...would he recommended a 1800x costing around 250 to 300 over an 8700k costing 360 quid.

Before I get slapped performance between the two is tiny.

At the 1800x price point you can get a 8600k at 240 quid.

So if you was to pick between 8600k and 1800x, I'd pick the 1800x.

It certainly isn't tiny in games, which is what I imagine a lot would be doing with these cpus

 

[lltfdaniel]

It certainly isn't tiny in games, which is what I imagine a lot would be doing with these cpus

Okay well i am not updated on this regarding benchmarks but ok.

Anyhow 1600 ryzen eats the 7600k,

Does the ryzen 1800x eat the single threaded 8600k..?

Games yeah intel wins here I agree but amd wins the value for performance crown.

For gamers it has to be intel, until then in the future it has too be amd and when all cores and threads are used.

Which is already understood but not everyone knows about that.

 

[lltfdaniel]

DF actually recommended the Ryzen 5 1600 over the Core i5 7600K IIRC.

Well looking at his posts it makes sense too me, intel has better IPC then ryzen so yeah.

Sorry for thread derailment.

He said 1800x being beaten by the 7600k.

So I had to step in and the ryzen 1600 beats the 7600k because people would think the 7600k is better than 1800x let alone the ryzen 1600 and buy the 7600k instead.

To be fair games love intel single core speed and IPC that's where he is coming from but he didn't expose all of the story though about ryzen (ryzen 1600) actually eating the 7600k for breakfast in performance that he was comparing with.

Any case on a website i cannot name the ryzen 1800x hovers around the £250 to 300 quid mark and when it is near £250 price tag they sell like hot cakes, when they are out of stock the price goes up when selling is slow the price goes down.

When it is near £250 quid what would you get 1800x or a 8600k or any other intel 6 cores single threaded cpu? (okay well only between 1800x and 8600k due to price)

Anyways is there a 6core/12 thread cpu around from intel?

Edit,

I am leaning towards the 8700 non k intel processor they are selling for under 300 quid which i think is tight competition from intel so that is good on a website i cannot name.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

Buying a 4 core / 4 thread CPU for gaming is not a good long term bet. The competition Ryzen has produced means for CPU's at least there are good deals on offer at most price points now. Unfortunately memory and GPU prices are very high at the moment.

 

[~>Dg<~]

i wasnt saying go buy a 7600k i was saying that across the gaming board on a whole the 7600k will be level par with a 1800x often beating it even in modern games like pubg.

so i see no point if just gaming buying a ryzen chip. if you just gaming buy intel i5 or i7. if you doing more than just gaming then ryzen comes into the mix. please dont compare the 1800x vs the 8700k for gaming its not even close. in some games its upto 40 fps difference.

 

[humbug]

What I found is obvious with Ryzen is how much smoother games are. Average and max FPS in benchmarks are more often than not, better on Intel, but this doesn't show you the entire story.

I would advise people look closer at the minimum FPS and frame times to get a good example of what Ryzen can offer. This isn't always the case, but certainly something that I have experienced with several builds both Intel and Ryzen in the past year.

Certainly something to take into consideration, but is just a small part of deciding which platform to go for. But my 2 cents on gaming experience.

One or two of you guys are not going to like this but i have now moved to a Ryzen 1600 and yes the gaming performance is smoother.

The actual FPS is anything from the same to much much higher, actually.

 

[bakes0310]

So high fps isn't just what makes games smooth anymore, it's something that the ryzen is using?

Edit: genuinely interested, not having a pop.

 

[humbug]

So high fps isn't just what makes games smooth anymore, it's something that the ryzen is using?

Just High FPS never did, take AMD's old HD 7### series GPU's, back in the day in CF they would churn out very high FPS. but they were not smooth, AMD actually acknowledged that as true and worked on fixing it, the fix is whats now called Frame Pacing, the clue as to what it does is in its name.

Lots of common things on the CPU can effect how smooth the game is, larger Cache sizes, more compute threads even if they are not actually used by the game still help the game by freeing up compute threads purely for handling the game where they might have been tasked with the game and windows background services.

If you have a 1000 Watt audio Amp you may never use that power, but it will find life powering the 200 Watt speakers a lot easier than a 200 watt Amp

 

[Hedge]

i wasnt saying go buy a 7600k i was saying that across the gaming board on a whole the 7600k will be level par with a 1800x often beating it even in modern games like pubg.

so i see no point if just gaming buying a ryzen chip. if you just gaming buy intel i5 or i7. if you doing more than just gaming then ryzen comes into the mix. please dont compare the 1800x vs the 8700k for gaming its not even close. in some games its upto 40 fps difference.

Are these games with up to 40 fps difference at a resolution of 1440p to 4k?

 

[gavinh87]

One or two of you guys are not going to like this but i have now moved to a Ryzen 1600 and yes the gaming performance is smoother.

The actual FPS is anything from the same to much much higher, actually.

4690k 4.5ghz vs 1600 3.9ghz at 1080p and ryzen is much higher? You must have a super special edition there! Got any benchmarks to show us?

 

[lltfdaniel]

Before you slap me, gavin87 but don't we all agree we would recommend a 1600 ryzen over the 7600k let alone the 4690k?

I think i need to look into the 4690k benchmarks.

Or more to my liking, i have to look at crysis 3 benchmarks.

Had a quick look for crysis 3 benchmarks and still need to search on google.

edit

I have given up because i can't find any ryzen 1600 vs 4690k crysis 3 benchmarks specifically.

 

[gavinh87]

Before you slap me, gavin87 but don't we all agree we would recommend a 1600 ryzen over the 7600k let alone the 4690k?

I think i need to look into the 4690k benchmarks.

Or more to my liking, i have to look at crysis 3 benchmarks.

Had a quick look for crysis 3 benchmarks and still need to search on google.

edit

I have given up because i can't find any ryzen 1600 vs 4690k crysis 3 benchmarks specifically.

Smoother I can believe but much higher fps? I doubt that part. That's why I asked of he did any benchmarks.

 

[Hedge]

Before you slap me, gavin87 but don't we all agree we would recommend a 1600 ryzen over the 7600k let alone the 4690k?

I think i need to look into the 4690k benchmarks.

Or more to my liking, i have to look at crysis 3 benchmarks.

Had a quick look for crysis 3 benchmarks and still need to search on google.

This is something I find funny about PCs. Single player Games from 2013 are somehow relevant. It's like PC gamers dont get bored with games.