• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

OcUK Ryzen 2000 series review thread

chrcoluk said:
humbug do you agree the 2600x is a better buy vs 2700x for gaming? Media has its usual frenzy on the highest priced chips but for value for money the 2600x easily has the 2700x beat I reckon.

Also sorry dude, what is that video doing running a 8700k at 4.4ghz? A ryzen clocked up to its limit vs a 8700k nowhere near its limit ;)
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, the 2600X is the clear gaming option, the 2700X is no faster in games and nothing like that is going to be for a couple of years at least, it will take a while for game development to catch up to 16 threads.
 
chrcoluk said:
humbug do you agree the 2600x is a better buy vs 2700x for gaming? Media has its usual frenzy on the highest priced chips but for value for money the 2600x easily has the 2700x beat I reckon.

Also sorry dude, what is that video doing running a 8700k at 4.4ghz? A ryzen clocked up to its limit vs a 8700k nowhere near its limit ;)
Click to expand...

Edit, yes its 4.4Ghz 8700K vs 4.2Ghz 2700X, no argument from me the 8700K has 400/500Mhz (10%) up its sleeve while the 2700X is all out of ideas, but you know what, that's fine. at the tested speeds they are on par with eachother, the 8700K can have its extra 10% and deservedly so.

It doesn't change the fact the 2700X and there in the 2600X is that close to the much more expensive 8700K in games, for £200 at 90% the performance of the £330 Intel gaming king, i'll take it :)
 
JediFragger said:
I really love the lower CPU utilisation on Ryzen during this vid, shows just how much more headroom it has for longevity :cool:
Click to expand...

I just watched this vid. I consider it flawed tho.

How many people go out and buy an 8700k and then run it at 4.4ghz? After you considered the answer to that question how reasonable do you think that testing methodology was? This is ignoring the choice of games which are all very pro core heavy games to boot.

Wouldnt it be great if there was a rule where every reviewer had to test 10 games, but no reviewer was allowed to test the same game as another so if e.g. 10 reviewers 100 different games get tested instead of 10 reviewers testing the same 6-7 games 10 times each. With only a few variances.

I think the clock speed is going to cause differing opinions.

Some will say its fair to test in spec performance.
Others like me will say you dont buy a K series chip to run it in spec and it should be run in a common configuration, perhaps at a clock speed that the poor binned chips run at say 4.8ghz.
 
humbug said:
Edit, yes its 4.4Ghz 8700K vs 4.2Ghz 2700X, no argument from me the 8700K has 400/500Mhz (10%) up its sleeve while the 2700X is all out of ideas, but you know what, that's fine. at the tested speeds they are on par with eachother, the 8700K can have its extra 10% and deservedly so.

It doesn't change the fact the 2700X and there in the 2600X is that close to the much more expensive 8700K in games, for £200 at 90% the performance of the £330 Intel gaming king, i'll take it :)
Click to expand...

In thread heavy games you are right they close.

The video author should have just clocked the 8700k to 4.8ghz and then he wouldnt be giving this ammo to people. But he didnt, and now people will go on about that 4.4ghz.
 
Hotwired said:
Fascinated to know whose screwup is being highlighted with anandtechs gaming results.

Has no bearing on the product but a disagreement on testing and therefore results will encourage people to be more vigilant when we find out why.
Click to expand...

I think I figured it out:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1185...-lake-review-8700k-and-8400-initial-numbers/5

AT didn't use high end cooling on the Intel parts,but this rack mount CPU cooler probably to simulate a stock cooler instead of high end cooling:

http://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?area=en&pid=652

It was also used in their Core i7 8700K review.They used the stock AMD coolers for the Ryzen 2000 series.

A number of reviews which tested the Ryzen 2000 series like computerbase.de also did use the AMD stock cooler,but used massive Noctua coolers for the Intel chips.

chrcoluk said:
I just watched this vid. I consider it flawed tho.

How many people go out and buy an 8700k and then run it at 4.4ghz? After you considered the answer to that question how reasonable do you think that testing methodology was? This is ignoring the choice of games which are all very pro core heavy games to boot.

Wouldnt it be great if there was a rule where every reviewer had to test 10 games, but no reviewer was allowed to test the same game as another so if e.g. 10 reviewers 100 different games get tested instead of 10 reviewers testing the same 6-7 games 10 times each. With only a few variances.

I think the clock speed is going to cause differing opinions.

Some will say its fair to test in spec performance.
Others like me will say you dont buy a K series chip to run it in spec and it should be run in a common configuration, perhaps at a clock speed that the poor binned chips run at say 4.8ghz.
Click to expand...

Its running its native Turbo AFAIK and he does proper time-runs. So it boosts to 4.4GHZ,out of the box.

For me what is more significant is they tested the Ryzen 7 1800X and it fell behind the Core i7 8700K. However,with the Ryzen 7 2700X its very close around Swan's Pond which is in one of the more denser parts of the map,and its not a smallish hub area like Diamond City.

You can see the GTX1080 is being held back on both CPUs,which sounds about right as you move into the city.

OFC,I am going to wait for more Fallout 4 testing,but I really want to see the Core i5 8400 against the Ryzen 5 2600/2600X in the game,as I doubt the Ryzen 7 2700X is realistically going to add much to it.
 
Last edited:
@chrcoluk they are not so core heavy as to favour 16 threads over 12, nothing does that yet.

It has GTA-V, Project Cars, Fallout 4, BF1, FarCry 5, Arma III these are not games that favor Ryzen, other than one of them they are just not games that favor Intel.
 
I know its running in stock turbo, but thats not a way to test a chip sold for the purpose of running overclocked past that and that is a "key" selling point of that chip.

Its like racing in a ferrari with 2 cylinders off to make it easier for the opponent.
 
humbug said:
@chrcoluk they are not so core heavy as to favious 16 threads over 12, nothing does that yet.

It has GTA-V, Project Cars, Fallout 4, BF1, FarCry 5, Arma III these are not games that favor Ryzen, other than one of them they are just not games that favor Intel.
Click to expand...

All the games in that list will load up 8 cores. A 8 core loading game = thread heavy. GTA5, project cars, FC5 and BF1 have actually been tested on 24 core parts and loaded up all 24 cores.

There is not a single JRPG, not a single indie game.
 
chrcoluk said:
I know its running in stock turbo, but thats not a way to test a chip sold for the purpose of running overclocked past that and that is a "key" selling point of that chip.

Its like racing in a ferrari with 2 cylinders off to make it easier for the opponent.
Click to expand...

Also take into account that the 2700X will do its 4.2Ghz on its box cooler, easily.

Most reviewers like to use custom loops or at least high end 240mm AIO's to cool overclocked 8700K's, they don't overclock at all without those, not everyone can afford those high end coolers, maybe the reviewer in this case couldn't.

And if so i don't see anything wrong with the review, it doesn't always have to be shown in its best light needing those very expensive cooling solutions, Ryzen doesn't need them because its HS is soldered and the CPU is power efficient, Intel don't always need to be given a free ride, Make your CPU's better, Intel.
 
chrcoluk said:
All the games in that list will load up 8 cores. A 8 core loading game = thread heavy.

There is not a single JRPG, not a single indie game.
Click to expand...

Wait,wut?? ARMA III has a crap ancient engine which shows very poor thread scaling but is very popular. FarCry5 shows crap scaling over 4 threads due to its use of the Dunia engine,and is very popular too and loves clockspeed. Look on Steam. Both top 20 games.

Creation uses one primary thread,followed by one which is less used,and then shows crappy scaling to a further 4 threads,because Bethesda somehow forced the engine to do so,which is an improvement over Skyrim. Its based on the Gamebryo engine used in Morrowind in 2002.

Saw how your Core i5 8600K and a Core i7 7700K matched the Core i7 8700K?? That tells you how well threaded it is.

Its the same engine used in Skyrim FFS. Also Steam top 20 game - plus this is a game with 24000 mods,and one of the biggest modding communities in the gaming world with nearly 400 million downloads of mods. Only Skyrim is more.

Anyone who plays the game,can literally see that if you look at CPU usage when the engine gets strained especially in settlements,and especially with mods. One thread moves closer to 100%,then next one gets closer to 80% and the few others show much lower usage.

Lots of so called reviews,test the game in stupid areas,not the intense ones,so get totally unrealistic results. Most FO4 testing by sites is BS level. Lets walk in the countryside - yeah what a pointless test.

This is measured by NPC concentrations - the higher the NPC concentrations,the crapper the performance gets.

Move into the city= more NPCs=worse performance.

Not as bad as settlements,which if you build up are even worse,as it starts to affect the whole cell.

Then add on top,all the logic you can build in settlements,then mods on top. Aghhh.

It on top of that loves high speed RAM and loves SSDs.

TxMcLrQ.png

Over a 1000 hours of Fallout 4 and Skyrim,I don't need any review to tell me how crap the engine is. Its a money sink.

My modded FO4 game at qHD is more taxing than ARK:Survival Evolved.

If that game used 8 threads well,I wouldn't be sitting here wanting a CPU upgrade. That game and PS2 are the only games I see a realworld bottleneck,which has been exacerbated by the security patches.

If the Fallout 4 results are confirmed by other reviews on YT,etc over the next month or so then it makes Ryzen 2 an option for me instead of just Intel. I was moaning at Fallout 4 performance on Ryzen 1 since it launched.

Every single other one,I have no issue running including massively popular games like Overwatch,HOTS,DOTA2,D3,TF2,etc.

chrcoluk said:
I know its running in stock turbo, but thats not a way to test a chip sold for the purpose of running overclocked past that and that is a "key" selling point of that chip.

Its like racing in a ferrari with 2 cylinders off to make it easier for the opponent.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the testing games review or the AT one?? I was talking about the testing games one,not the AT one when I replied.

The Core i7 8700K was running at 4.4GHZ and the Ryzen 7 2700 at 4.2GHZ IIRC,with 3200MHZ RAM in both cases.

Now,moving onto the AT review.

Regarding the cooling,I think reviews should test a cheaper cooler and an expensive one,on all CPUs.

Plenty of people will probably buy a K series CPU for its high Turbo speeds,not for overclocking since they CBA(like most of my mates and me included),since its not worth the effort for a few 100MHZ(delidding,and stability testing,etc).

So they might just plonk a £25 to £30 cooler on it like a Hyper 212,and testing that and a more expensive one to see the difference is useful.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the AT article using older titles, they do it to maintain consistency in their "bench" tables. They chart every product against the previous gen's as best they can so I can see why they do it. I personally find its a pretty good resource for like for like testing over a large sample of product. It would however be a better idea to include some more relevant titles along side to mitigate risk of their review becoming obsolete before they even publish it. In AT's favour, I do normally find they are as thorough as they can be and if they have made a mistake they hold their hands up, the PB2 BIOS issue is interesting, be good to get confirmation from other sites they have it enabled correctly.
 
Why do people keep mention the price difference.

There isn't one. Look around the web and your find both CPUs for the same price.

The mobo are the same everything is the same.

---

Saying that I'm thinking of buying one.
 
opethdisciple said:
But then this is slightly contradictory to other reviews I've read/watched yesterday.

Usually in some games your looking like 10-20 FPS difference.
Click to expand...

If you whatch closeley you see the same thing in this, it just happens so fast and the frame rates are so high on both its not easy to spot, i'll take a screen shot later if you like.

The thing with side by side run through like this it doesn't look as clear cut as it does on a slide, 270 FPS vs 300 FPS looks convincing, when you see that flash by on screen for just a moment its doesn't look all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom