New build ryzen 1800x vs 8700k

lltfdaniel · 28 Jan 2018 at 09:30

Crysis 3 is a good example but i have found benchmarks from 2013.

It actually uses 8 cores crysis 3 does.

I'm gonna take a break.

:/.

I think we could do a crysis 3 benchmark out of all of us here on overclockers forums or not.

Or any other benchmark that uses 8 cores.

Hedge · 28 Jan 2018 at 09:36

lltfdaniel said:
Crysis 3 is a good example but i have found benchmarks from 2013.

It actually uses 8 cores crysis 3 does.

I'm gonna take a break.

:/.

I think we could do a crysis 3 benchmark out of all of us here on overclockers forums or not.

Or any other benchmark that uses 8 cores.

Oh no doubt what you say is probably true, I just find it interesting that PC gamers still talk about games from years ago. Benchmarking is a strange hobby.

lltfdaniel · 28 Jan 2018 at 09:56

Anycase ryzen wouldn't be handicapped if all of its cores are used, otherwise we are going to get fps that is like the same mostly(?) except the 8700k being 40fps higher in benchmarks that is and he is right but i feel benchmarks don't tell the whole story varying on what benchmark you are viewing.

But that isn't the point and am braindead about the handicapped ryzens.

humbug · 28 Jan 2018 at 13:12

gavinh87 said:
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?

Yes, Ryzen IPC is higher. and it has 50% more cores, 300% more compute threads and 350% more cache.

Put me back on your ignore list. :rolleyes:

gavinh87 · 28 Jan 2018 at 13:16

humbug said:
Yes, Ryzen IPC is higher. and it has 50% more cores and 300% more compute threads and 350% more cache.

Put me back on your ignore list.

I'll take that as a no then, you don't have any proof of this.

jigger · 28 Jan 2018 at 13:27

Nice to see we are back using Nvidia 1080p DX11 driver performance to judge CPU performance.

If you are only gaming at 1080p with a GTX1080 or faster and want the best performance possible buy an i7 7740X or the highest clocking 7700K you can find. Move away from that setup and you buy the best Ryzen chip you can

lltfdaniel · 28 Jan 2018 at 13:41

jigger said:
Nice to see we are back using Nvidia 1080p DX11 driver performance to judge CPU performance.

If you are only gaming at 1080p with a GTX1080 or faster and want the best performance possible buy an i7 7740X or the highest clocking 7700K you can find. Move away from that setup and you buy the best Ryzen chip you can

Yeah it is good innit

.

gavinh87 · 28 Jan 2018 at 13:46

jigger said:
Nice to see we are back using Nvidia 1080p DX11 driver performance to judge CPU performance.

If you are only gaming at 1080p with a GTX1080 or faster and want the best performance possible buy an i7 7740X or the highest clocking 7700K you can find. Move away from that setup and you buy the best Ryzen chip you can

He has a 1080p monitor lol. And an nvidia video card.
So his comments of the 1600 being "much faster" than a 4.5ghz 4690K is just wrong.
Also note that hes using 3000mhz ram on that ryzen, gimping it further.

We can all say things like that but without any actual evidence its all tosh.
Do you have any 3dmark results at least? @humbug

jigger · 28 Jan 2018 at 13:48

gavinh87 said:
He has a 1080p monitor lol. And an nvidia video card.

It's not nice to laugh Gavin. Some people still use 1080p for various reasons.

gavinh87 · 28 Jan 2018 at 13:50

jigger said:
It's not nice to laugh Gavin. Some people still use 1080p for various reasons.

You're missing my point. He's using ryzen in the worst possible conditions.
1080P, nvidia video card, slow ram.
To say its much faster than a 4690K at 4.5ghz is a bit of a lie there I think.

jigger · 28 Jan 2018 at 13:53

gavinh87 said:
You're missing my point. He's using ryzen in the worst possible conditions.
1080P, nvidia video card, slow ram.
To say its much faster than a 4690K at 4.5ghz is a bit of a lie there I think.

Gavin you won't be able to tell, and no I wasn't missing the point... When I said *best Possible* you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, so as long as he didn't pay more for the Ryzen chip all is good. In fact Ryzen system is better as it offers better longeverty and upgrades on the same board. Stop fretting about people buying Ryzen, it's the best platform to buy.

gavinh87 · 28 Jan 2018 at 13:57

jigger said:
Gavin you won't be able to tell, and no I wasn't missing the point... When I said *best Possible* you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, so as long as he didn't pay more for the Ryzen chip all is good. In fact Ryzen system is better as it offers better longeverty and upgrades on the same board. Stop fretting about people buying Ryzen, it's the best platform to buy.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm asking him to backup his claim of it being "much faster" than his 4690k in games.

jigger · 28 Jan 2018 at 14:02

gavinh87 said:
I'm not saying otherwise.

Faceplam. Stop fretting Gavin.

Ryzen loooong waaaaay> everything else/end

gavinh87 · 28 Jan 2018 at 15:06

jigger said:
Faceplam. Stop fretting Gavin.

Ryzen loooong waaaaay> everything else/end

Delusional.

jigger · 28 Jan 2018 at 15:10

gavinh87 said:
Delusional.

Yeah. At least you are admitting now though.

lltfdaniel · 28 Jan 2018 at 15:18

Okay guys, don't peck at each others eyes is what i am thinking.

humbug · 29 Jan 2018 at 18:04

gavinh87 said:
I'm not saying otherwise. I'm asking him to backup his claim of it being "much faster" than his 4690k in games.

Ok, with the hope that you drop this subject i'll bite, Dirt Showdown is the oldest game i have with a built in benchmark, its from 2013, i think, its an old game and one of those where low threaded IPC and Mhz matter more than '6 cores'

With both the 4690K @ 4.5Ghz and the Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.9Ghz my GTX 1070 was bottle-necked.

This is 1080P with all AA settings turned off.

The 4690K @ 4.5Ghz: Min 99 FPS - Avr 139 FPS

The Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.9Ghz: Min 117 FPS - Avr 152 FPS

So the Ryzen 5 1600 is faster even in this very old game, by some 18% on the minimums.

In 3D productivity workloads its literally twice as fast.

gavinh87 · 29 Jan 2018 at 18:21

Prob gonna get slammed here but dirt favours AMD for some reason. Anyhow, holy aliasing!
Did you do any 3dmark runs? This reiterates my point though sometimes its good and other times a 7600k can beat it. They need to sort optimizations out, maybe by the time 7nm comes out.

humbug · 29 Jan 2018 at 18:26

gavinh87 said:
Prob gonna get slammed here but dirt favours AMD for some reason. Anyhow, holy aliasing!
Did you do any 3dmark runs? This reiterates my point though sometimes its good and other times a 7600k can beat it. They need to sort optimizations out, maybe by the time 7nm comes out.

Its from 2013, it didn't even favor AMD's architecture from that time, the 2500K is faster than the FX-8350 in Dirt Showdown.

I did a quick run of 3DMark, the GPU performance was the same, the physics score and the combined bench FPS was double that of the 4690K.

gavinh87 · 29 Jan 2018 at 18:30

humbug said:
Its from 2013, it didn't even favor AMD's architecture from that time, the 2500K is faster than the FX-8350 in Dirt Showdown.

I did a quick run of 3DMark, the GPU performance was the same, the physics score and the combined bench FPS was double that of the 4690K.

I seem to remember dirt being one of the few titles where the fx came on top. Too long ago for my memory.
We have a different opinion on these as we come from different CPU's to begin with, 4770 vs 4690. TBH, I don't know why I bothered moving from it. I got dragged into the hype just like i did with the FX 6300.