On the fence, Ryzen 1700, or i7 7700k, not overclocking

voidshatter · 31 Jul 2017 at 20:59

TheRealDeal said:
Where did you get these benchmarks from

Click on the CPU models to get where these benchmarks are from (and the numbers are normalised according to overclocking).

TheRealDeal · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:11

voidshatter said:
Click on the CPU models to get where these benchmarks are from (and the numbers are normalised according to overclocking).

Passmark seems to be over cooking the Intel numbers. Check out Cine Bench that does a single threaded work load and a multi core and it's way closer. Gaming performance would also suggest this. If Passmark was correct Ryzen would be a dud. Single threaded performance on Ryzen is way closer than those results suggest. looking at those results ryzen would barely be an upgrade for me if i went for a 4/8 thread cpu.

Doobedoo · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:14

Cpu UserBenchmark seems to paint a different picture. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3647vs3917

TheRealDeal · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:18

Doobedoo said:
Cpu UserBenchmark seems to paint a different picture. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700/3647vs3917

That's pretty much where i thought they would compare at stock due to clocks. If you believe Passmark Ryzen is not much better than my I7 920 at 4.0ghz when that's not reality at all. If something seems off you got to engage that brain and look else where.

muon · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:25

TheRealDeal said:
Where did you get these benchmarks from. Without that i can't reply properly. From what i have seen max oc which usually varies between both on Cinebench you are looking at 25-30% single threaded. Double the cores and the 1700 has a distict advantage for threaded games in the future.

It's his favourite go to benchmark, Passmark which is one of the few multithreaded benchmarks which favours Intel over Ryzen.

Doobedoo · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:26

Not sure how relative streaming is to multitask programs and stuff of that nature but it must be an indicator at least. Well this is what Gamers Nexus had to say, not sure if it's been posted already but it interesting never the less.

If that’s not a concern – and it may well not be one – then the R7s get our recommendation over the i7-7700K presently, hands-down, based on today’s testing. The R7 1700 didn’t need an overclock to produce its consistent stream output while maintaining relative gaming performance (“relative” because, like the 7700K, we still see reduced frametime consistency). Overclocking would further bolster numbers, of course, but may end up being unnecessary for most folks. We’d still recommend the 1700 over the 1700X or 1800X, purely because a simple OC gets any 1700 within range of both alternatives. The money can be put toward something else, like RAM.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2993-amd-1700-vs-intel-7700k-for-game-streaming/page-2

TheRealDeal · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:34

muon said:
It's his favourite go to benchmark, Passmark which is one of the few multithreaded benchmarks which favours Intel over Ryzen.

Ahh if one bench says so but nothing else does just keep hitting it for your point of view.

voidshatter · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:38

TheRealDeal said:
Passmark seems to be over cooking the Intel numbers. Check out Cine Bench that does a single threaded work load and a multi core and it's way closer. Gaming performance would also suggest this. If Passmark was correct Ryzen would be a dud. Single threaded performance on Ryzen is way closer than those results suggest. looking at those results ryzen would barely be an upgrade for me if i went for a 4/8 thread cpu.

Cinebench numbers: multi-thread, single-thread

920 @ 4GHz: 666, 125
7700K @ 5GHz: 1098, 216
Ryzen 1700 @ 3.9GHz: 1840, 143

TheRealDeal · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:48

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/5/

I notice how you always pull out Ryzen's lowest OC to pretty much the max 7700k can do.

Why is the 1800x pulling up way better number at 3.6ghz to 4.0ghz when the 1700 is pretty much the same chip on lower clocks.

At 4.0ghz your 1700 results are off or something was up.

As expected at 4.0ghz it's pretty much in line with the 1800x in single thread.

https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-03-08/oc-cb15-1.png

Your Multi threaded result is along the right lines though possibly even high.

voidshatter · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:49

TheRealDeal said:
Where are you pulling these from.

Obviously adding the links in my post still gets ignored by you

muon · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:50

voidshatter said:
Cinebench numbers: multi-thread, single-thread

920 @ 4GHz: 666, 125
7700K @ 5GHz: 1098, 216
Ryzen 1700 @ 3.9GHz: 1840, 143

That's better. You can see how those numbers are very different to Passmark.

voidshatter · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:51

TheRealDeal said:
I notice how you always pull out Ryzen's lowest OC to pretty much the max 7700k can do.

According to Silicon Lottery, 3.9GHz is almost the maximum stable frequency, while 7700K can do 5.2GHz. I'd say it's easier for 7700K to achieve 5GHz stable than 1700 to achieve 3.9GHz stable.

muon · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:53

voidshatter said:
According to Silicon Lottery, 3.9GHz is almost the maximum stable frequency, while 7700K can do 5.2GHz. I'd say it's easier for 7700K to achieve 5GHz stable than 1700 to achieve 3.9GHz stable.

3.9 is pretty easy. 4.0 is where it gets tough.

You'll note a lot of reviewers do benchmarking at 4.0.

gavinh87 · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:55

voidshatter said:
According to Silicon Lottery, 3.9GHz is almost the maximum stable frequency, while 7700K can do 5.2GHz. I'd say it's easier for 7700K to achieve 5GHz stable than 1700 to achieve 3.9GHz stable.

Silicon lottery use realbench for stability lol.

voidshatter · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:56

muon said:
3.9 is pretty easy. 4.0 is where it gets tough.

Then how do you explain Silicon Lottery currently not selling 4GHz bins at all? Don't forget the black screen thread.

voidshatter · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:59

gavinh87 said:
Silicon lottery use realbench for stability lol.

What about OcUK? 8 Pack is only selling 3.9GHz bins as well. 3.9GHz is realistically the achievable frequency for stability. I don't want to get the black screen crash intermittently while gaming or working.

TheRealDeal · 31 Jul 2017 at 21:59

voidshatter said:
Then how do you explain Silicon Lottery currently not selling 4GHz bins at all? Don't forget the black screen thread.

How many people do you know that run a 7700 at 5.2 ghz. i bet there is more on a 1700 that get to 4.0ghz although 3.9 is there or there abouts. The review i showed was at 4.0ghz. never seen a review site getting 5.2ghz.

A quick glance shows ocuk are happy at 4.8ghz on the 7700k

muon · 31 Jul 2017 at 22:00

voidshatter said:
Then how do you explain Silicon Lottery currently not selling 4GHz bins at all? Don't forget the black screen thread.

It likely relates to people with weak IMCs stressing it too much. Especially at a time when bioses weren't very mature.

voidshatter · 31 Jul 2017 at 22:01

TheRealDeal said:
How many people do you know that run a 7700 at 5.2 ghz. i bet there is more on a 1700 that get to 4.0ghz although 3.9 is there or there abouts. The review i showed was at 4.0ghz. never seen a review site getting 5.2ghz.

Both 8 Pack and the other retailer in the US are selling 5.2GHz bins. It passes the quality control. I was merely quoting performance numbers at 5Ghz which is easily achievable.

Doobedoo · 31 Jul 2017 at 22:02

Almost the same as what cpu User Benchmark has.

1700 showing a 67.58 increase in multi-thread and a 33.8 decrease in single-thread. Bearing in mind a 5.0ghz is at the extreme end of over clocking and will probably need de-lidding to keep the temps down, not a realistic figure for the majority.