Regardless of FPS, Ryzen gives more smoothness. Intel's processors give more microstuttering, higher frametimes and worse 99th percentile
Accusing Guru3D of being "poster without experience" is utter craziness.
-
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.
Ryzen "2" ?
- Thread starter beany_bot
- Start date
Regardless of FPS, Ryzen gives more smoothness. Intel's processors give more microstuttering, higher frametimes and worse 99th percentile
Accusing Guru3D of being "poster without experience" is utter craziness.
Regardless of FPS, Ryzen gives more smoothness. Intel's processors give more microstuttering, higher frametimes and worse 99th percentile
Accusing Guru3D of being "poster without experience" is utter craziness.
I was talking about the poster I quoted in this thread.
There are reviews showing that the frametimes, percentiles and minimums are better on the 8700k and some owners who have used both saying the same. I'm sure we could find users that say the same about Ryzen. At the end of the day none of us know unless we have been in a position to try both. Not possible for many of us and so we go with the reviewers we trust. For me that's DF who specialize in games more than the other reviewers and Gamer's Nexus who just generally go far more in depth.
Yes, it can only really be because of the extra cores.
Whether SMT will make such a difference in 5 years' time, who knows. But to say that, for example, a 5 GHz 6c/6t CPU has "more grunt in the tank" than a 4 GHz 6c/12t CPU for gaming in the future is a pretty bold statement. We can't really know what the situation will be in 5 years, maybe every single current CPU will be worthless because of some step-change, maybe they'll all be pretty much fine like a lot of older CPUs are now. I do know what I'd bet though, I'd bet the move towards using more threads continues rather than stalls or reverses. It can't go on forever (i.e. "let's all get 128c/256t CPUs!") and it's going to be very difficult to not have one main thread bottlenecking, but newer graphics APIs will help with that.
Just for balance I dont know where the 8700k hate is coming from. It looks like a pretty great chip, typical Intel, in that is a bit expensive but a really strong CPU. Buy it now and I suspect it will be a ling time before you are upgrading from a 5ghz 6c12t chip for a good long while.
AMD have a lot to close on the mhz but I believe they are going to get close with Zen+
AMD have a lot to close on the mhz but I believe they are going to get close with Zen+
Permabanned
Isn't that Guru3d review just GPU bound? The other reviews show large differences at 1440p with a 1080Ti. However the argument is often a bit silly, personally if its 100 vs 120 FPS it doesn't really affect your gaming experience. Especially with gsync.
Ryzen or Intel, both are great for gaming.
Ryzen or Intel, both are great for gaming.
Pretty sure the guys complaining had 3200 and 3466Mhz on their RAM, even with 3200 Ryzen is still pretty far behind the new Coffee Lakes in gaming.
Maybe Zen+ or Zen 2 will change things, but that remains to be seen.
A lot of people on this forum get defensive about AMD and Ryzen performance, benchmarks be damned.
I think we are returning to "normal business" with (in gaming) AMD are slightly behind Intel, but cheaper to buy.
Bar Athon64, that is where AMD has and should sit.
Last edited:
Permabanned
That's not quite the entire truth though is it.
Its somewhat behind in certain situations and certain hardware combinations. In the majority of use cases(those that dont have 1080ti's) its fairly equal pegging.Pegging. Fnarf.
Sorry, couldnt help it.
I will be getting an AMD as my next chip... And the single biggest reason is that I believe that I will actually be able to put a zen+ and a Zen 2 chip in a B350 motherboard.
Give me an open budget right now for a sealed box... The 8700k wins as the best chip of today. And the i5 looks lile a damn good chip as well. But if you have a budget this year but a bit more next year and AMD win.
They also win as they will get to sell me two chips.
Sorry, couldnt help it.
I will be getting an AMD as my next chip... And the single biggest reason is that I believe that I will actually be able to put a zen+ and a Zen 2 chip in a B350 motherboard.
Give me an open budget right now for a sealed box... The 8700k wins as the best chip of today. And the i5 looks lile a damn good chip as well. But if you have a budget this year but a bit more next year and AMD win.
They also win as they will get to sell me two chips.
Don't forget temps. You can overclock a Ryzen 7 to a near guaranteed 4Ghz on the stock cooler.
Intel. well be prepared to delid and void your warranty and fork out for an AIO.
Heh in a different thread someone pointed out to you that you don't need to de-lid to overclock Coffeelake and you thanked them and then posted this. Weird!
That same person has a 240mm AIO. As I've always said, you don't necessarily need both but good luck overclocking Coffee Lake without either delidding or getting very expensive cooling. You don't need either for Ryzen, admittedly because it won't clock anywhere near as high.Heh in a different thread someone pointed out to you that you don't need to de-lid to overclock Coffeelake and you thanked them and then posted this. Weird!
Is it that essential? I've seen many reviews showing a Noctua DH14/15 performing the same as a 240 AIO. Not a cheap option as such but then if you want to push your chip it's not going to be I guess.
Depends how high you wanna go. I highly doubt 5+ GHz is achievable for most with air cooling unless you delid.
Soldato
Gamers Nexus used 2 games ONLY at 2560x1440 and both have explicitly have shown issues with the Ryzen CPU.
Especially TWW1 runs constantly on the last thread not core of the given CPU, consuming it at all times at 100%, and barely any other thread or core is being used. Hence why Intel systems at high clock speed perform better.
Anyone who has the game and puts the MSI AB overlay will say the same.
Also it has issues with NV DX12 that cripples it's performance even on the 6800K, because of the above issue. At DX11 is less prominent and the FPS 30% higher.
While others using TWW2 on the benchmarks (along side numerous other current games), shows completely different picture, because TWW2 is running on CORES not THREADS, which the tweaked engine avoids like a leper.
It also scales greatly among multiple cores, depending how many resources are available on the last core which is running again at 100%. That levels out the performance even at 1080p.
There are videos showing 76% usage on core 4 for a 5Ghz 7700K and the rest of the cores moving accordingly. While on lower speed CPUs, the last core runs at 100% and the other cores see heavier loads. But the fps are always dependant of the GPU and same across the board.
For example another review, more games tested
GN also, knew exactly which games they will pick, as per Intel's instructions. (yes they exist hence many reviewers said that they don't follow Intel's advice on how to do the tests)
There was no Tomb Raider for example, a game very common the last year on benchmarks, why?
Also European sites, getting their CPUs from 3rd parties to test, not ES modules directly from Intel, show a completely different picture.
On top. Do not trust the current 8700K benchmarks. We have no idea what sort of golden chips were on the first batch and on reviewers systems.
Why I say that?
Intel covering up their bottoms, only promise now 1 core to hit 4.7Ghz. The rest even if they can work at 4Ghz or less, doesn't matter. Is not their problem, because legally they cheat nobody....
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/in...close-multi-core-turbo-boost-frequencies.html
And knowing Inte's shadow tactics over the years, I foresee some funny threads popping that performance isn't what expected, and cores are running at low speeds.....
Last edited:
Soldato
First Guru3d is Dutch website, and got their retail CPU from 3rd party supplier. Not a golden chip from Intel directly like the US reviewers.
Second, their benchmarks shows that a with a GTX1080 at 1920X1080 the field is levelled. You need GTX1080Ti to see any differences. However you will agree, buying a £750 GPU for 1080p gaming, is stupid, yes?
If you say no, maybe you should call the Nvidia marketing team they post lies, that the GTX1080Ti is a 4K gaming card, and is truly a 1080p card only, while on higher resolutions it bottlenecks the system.....
Also, how about the rest of the plebs using GTX1070 or lesser cards at 1080p? They ain't going to see any benefit with the new 8th series Intel, and ain't worth to pay for it, when there are alternative products for far less money.
No you can’t. Most don’t do 4.0 with any cooling and anything over 3.6/3.7 needs a better cooler.
Don’t get me wrong stock cooler is impressive but that’s a bit of an exaggeration
Soldato
Nobody is overclocking a ryzen 7 to 4.0 on the stock cooler.
Where do these claims come from? Hell, unless you get the 1800x you are looking at 3.8/3.9 and that doesn't even come with the stock cooler
In handbrake under a h100i v2 my [email protected] was hitting 80c, the stock cooler wouldn't cope.
Where do all these crazy claims origin from?
Where do these claims come from? Hell, unless you get the 1800x you are looking at 3.8/3.9 and that doesn't even come with the stock cooler
In handbrake under a h100i v2 my [email protected] was hitting 80c, the stock cooler wouldn't cope.
Where do all these crazy claims origin from?
Permabanned