9 game average 1080p = 8400 wins albeit a small victory. There are pro's / con's depending on your situation.
@marco.da.man hope you enjoy your new CPU / system.
-
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 5 1600 or 1600x
- Thread starter marco.da.man
- Start date
9 game average 1080p = 8400 wins albeit a small victory. There are pro's / con's depending on your situation.
@marco.da.man hope you enjoy your new CPU / system.
9 game average 1080p = 8400 wins albeit a small victory. There are pro's / con's depending on your situation.
@marco.da.man hope you enjoy your new CPU / system.
Thats 2%. margin of error....
The one i posted was 35% to the Ryzen 1600, that's a real difference, whats more it shows what the CPU is actually capable of which may well be relevant to future performance comparisons between these two when games get better optimised for AMD now that they are back.
No you didn't ^^^^ you came in here pretty bullish saying to forget about Ryzen and just get the 8400, if you're going to do something like that then yes, actually you do need to explain yourself.
Only at 720P and not by much overall, no one games at 720P and at 1080P or higher they are much the same, other than one game that is...
You and Steve from HU have misinterpreted this benchmark. Its time taken you want to measure, not fps.
A slower CPU will always have more fps in this game.
The only reason the 8400 and the 1600 are scoring the same here is because the GPU is maxxed out. Remove that bottleneck and the 8400 will walk it
This is how it should be done;
Last edited:
Gamers nexus explained that this benchmark FPS is a non starter. it should be the time taken to complete the task/turn not fps.
edit ^^ what gavinh87 said.
if you subtract civ 6 benchmark from the 9 game average, the 8400 would beat it (again)
edit ^^ what gavinh87 said.
if you subtract civ 6 benchmark from the 9 game average, the 8400 would beat it (again)
So lets all get Intel Atoms to run it...
Erm...? no, me and Steve know how to interpret it, not just me and Steve every reviewer interprets it the same way. its you that have that wrong.
I think you're confusing the CPU benchmark option in this from the GPU benchmark option, this slide is from the former.
How you two could possibly think higher FPS = slower CPU in any benchmark is.. well, its strange.
Because the Ryzen CPU has higher FPS it must be that higher FPS = slower CPU, right? lol
Guys, really? i mean that's fun and all but seriously thats pretty spectacular twisting of the facts going on there, do you really think anyone believes that?
How you two could possibly think higher FPS = slower CPU in any benchmark is.. well, its strange.
Because the Ryzen CPU has higher FPS it must be that higher FPS = slower CPU, right? lol
Guys, really? i mean that's fun and all but seriously thats pretty spectacular twisting of the facts going on there, do you really think anyone believes that?
You need to stop and have a look at how civ6 works.
Taken from gamers nexus "Civilization VI is a frequency-intensive benchmark, and has proven that turn time is less dependent on cores. Note also that the Civ AI benchmark should not be used to test FPS, as worse CPUs will score higher framerates as a result of spending more time on static screens."
Now stop before you embarrass yourself further.
- Joined
- 9 May 2012
- Posts
- 851
- Location
- South Wales
guys while i appreciate all view, its been 5 years since i upgraded my system i presume the above charts are on current games at 1080p and feature the fps and also the graphics settings playable at ?
im still trying catch up on modern day facts etc
im still trying catch up on modern day facts etc
humbug,
watch this https://youtu.be/oCSkyNHXIAE?t=20m48s
"AVG FPS actually goes up for worse CPUs, because the time spent sitting idle on the screen is longer, as it takes longer for the game to calculate a turn. This makes FPS an unusable metric for this particular AI benchmark"
watch this https://youtu.be/oCSkyNHXIAE?t=20m48s
"AVG FPS actually goes up for worse CPUs, because the time spent sitting idle on the screen is longer, as it takes longer for the game to calculate a turn. This makes FPS an unusable metric for this particular AI benchmark"
Hey Marco,
You are correct.
There's little difference between the CPU's being discussed. The 1600 is a solid CPU paired with fast ram - i hope you get a good overclocker !
There are 3 different benchmarking modes with Civ, what you describe is one of them, the one Steve used is the CPU benchmark, you're confusing them. when i say confusing them... you also said this..
Thats not you just trolling is it? to think i actually thought there is no way he can believe that you actually do believe it, you really do, that's how it adds up in your head...
Because the Ryzen CPU has higher FPS it must be that higher FPS = slower CPU, i mean, in your world whatelse can it be, its the only thing that makes sense.
Watch or read the gamers nexus review to understand.
I've already seen it, what he is talking about and what Steve did to get those results are two entirely different things.
How can you not see that? do you still think slower CPU's give higher FPS in this game? if you do then i can see how it makes sense to you, as bonkers as that is its also just utterly misunderstanding the benchmark and GamersNexus explanation of it.
Last edited:
He actually explains why lol. Some people have blinkers on. Are you telling me that out of all the games tested over all of hardware unboxed videos that ryzen cpus are better than intel in that 1 single game yet getting consistently beat in everything else?
To answer your question, if wouldn't recommend a single ryzen cpu at least not in it's current state. Go and look through the ryzen owners thread to see the issues for yourself.
What CPU do you recommend i get for it? an i7 or a Ryzen 3 1200, a Ryzen 3 1200 gives me the most FPS, right?
Wouldn't it be great if all games worked like that, where the weaker the CPU the higher the performance.
Your Words
The Ryzen 1600 is a faster more powerful CPU that the 8400 and the 7700K, it is not inconceivably that in some games its faster.
The very fact that upon seeing a Ryzen CPU is faster in a game you bold as brass claimed it was because "slower CPU's make the game run faster" is why i and a lot of other people just cannot take anything you say on these subjects as serious or entirely from sanity.
That's because it's sits on the idle screen longer, the sole reason it's beats intel in this game is because it's doing nothing lol. Look at the time taken for turns to understand better.
Not some games, 1 just 1. Take the vega bottleneck away see what happens.
Thats a completely misunderstood view of it, You really just don't get this.
Its a pair of CPU's running calculations.
The Ryzen CPU is faster at that so it gets them done in a shorter time, shorter time = less time the GPU is sat idling waiting on the CPU to complete the task, less time the GPU is at idle the more frames its able to render at any given time = higher FPS = the Frame Rates are higher.
- Joined
- 9 May 2012
- Posts
- 851
- Location
- South Wales
guys to settle a simple debate isn't it the case that some processors will work better on some games than others, also overall wont your graphics card and ram also play a part in all this ?
dont get me wrong but isnt the basis off having a stable system is more important than this and that ?
dont get me wrong but isnt the basis off having a stable system is more important than this and that ?
Yes and yes.