Except it doesn't do calculations faster, it takes longer per turn!
-
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
Except it doesn't do calculations faster, it takes longer per turn!
Lets try thins from a different angle.
If a slower CPU results in higher FPS then explain why the overclocked Ryzen 1600 scores higher Frame Rates than the one at stock?
That guy from Gamers Nexus is not very bright, he is probably confusing the many different benchmarking options Civilisation 6 has, most of them not even testing the CPU but the GPU.
What Steve did was use the specific CPU benchmarking option, surprise surprise an overclocked CPU is faster than the same stock CPU, a faster CPU scores higher Frame Rates than a slower one.
If that floppy haired guy at Gamers Nexius explains that hes thinks he's found something that goes against the grain of whats correct by everyone elses standards... ignore him, in fact down vote him and unsubscribe, he gets confused a lot. No he really does, this isn't the first bonkers assertion he's made, he likes to think of himself as smarter than all the rest and with that is always looking for something that goes against the grain as if to say "look how clever i am", in reality he need's to consult that other guy a lot more before he opens him mouth.
I unsubscribed when he asserted 6, 8 and [__] core CPU's were useless cuz' CUDA. he's a fantasist... and not a bright one.
Last edited:
Is there a GPU and CPU (AI) benchmarks ?
For example gpu rendering scenes benchmark and then a cpu bound benchmark ?
Or in other words an fps benchmark and a time between turns benchmark ?
If so GN used AI (CPU) and HU used a graphics benchmark ?
For example gpu rendering scenes benchmark and then a cpu bound benchmark ?
Or in other words an fps benchmark and a time between turns benchmark ?
If so GN used AI (CPU) and HU used a graphics benchmark ?
Hasn't actually said but yes that would be the best bet if working on a budget. Hearing some of the stories with getting ram to work it's worth paying the premium on getting the 8pack ram for the peace of mind that it should be problem free
Isn't all this ram comparability now resolved or is it an ongoing issue ?
I'm no expect having only just joined the AMD Ryzen club after being a life long Intel fan, but doing some reading ahead of the move it's still hit and miss especially anything that isn't Samsung B-die based.
For me it was worth paying the extra and worked straight out of the box using the xmp profile that comes with the 8pack ram.
For me it was worth paying the extra and worked straight out of the box using the xmp profile that comes with the 8pack ram.
- Still ongoing. Take a look in the ryzen owners thread. You're looking at 2933 without bdie.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Poor guy, come in here stating he already had a B350 board ready to rock and wanted RyZen CPU and Ram advice and he's told to buy Intel by one guy, then another guy attacks the buy Intel guy, then another pro Intel fella turns up and between the three of them drag it way off topic 
OP - buy the 1600, buy the 8 Pack Ram, set it up and enjoy gaming, don't spend days going through benchmarks and YouTube videos of benchmarks etc, just enjoy your new PC, as you rightly stated, some CPU performance is better in some games and worse in others. RyZen 1600 is a more than capable chip at 1080p and as you go up Resolution you become GPU bound Anyhow
OP - buy the 1600, buy the 8 Pack Ram, set it up and enjoy gaming, don't spend days going through benchmarks and YouTube videos of benchmarks etc, just enjoy your new PC, as you rightly stated, some CPU performance is better in some games and worse in others. RyZen 1600 is a more than capable chip at 1080p and as you go up Resolution you become GPU bound Anyhow
- Joined
- 9 May 2012
- Posts
- 851
- Location
- South Wales
thankyou all guys,
yes it has gone a bit off track and for sake off £50 cheaper i am going for ryzen 1600 as after watching an offical asus video on the rog strix b350 it looks like it can all kinds off wanderfull stuff.
I will also be going for the 8pack ram at 3200mhz as this seems to give a bit more out off the ryzens
yes it has gone a bit off track and for sake off £50 cheaper i am going for ryzen 1600 as after watching an offical asus video on the rog strix b350 it looks like it can all kinds off wanderfull stuff.
I will also be going for the 8pack ram at 3200mhz as this seems to give a bit more out off the ryzens
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,221
The wraith spire cooler will handle a 3.7ghz overclock fine and the 8 pack 3200 works well with Ryzen.
- Joined
- 9 May 2012
- Posts
- 851
- Location
- South Wales
ive brought the coolermaster masterliquid 240 lite for cooling
Good choice.
Recently come from an AMD 8350 build. Went with the 1600 matched with the Teamskill Nighthawk RGB 3200mhz ram.
Currently running CPU @ 3.7ghz using stock cooler & the ram @ 3200mhz.
Cinebench results show just over double the speed of the standard clocked 8350 and games have seen some very good boosts so very happy!
I bought a 1600X and wish I hadn't... stupid bios slams the volts up to 1.45 whenever I touch the multiplier; instant heatwave. Which is admittedly the fault of the motherboard, but still rankles. Rather defeated my hopes of a better overclock with an X!
That said, it also runs ~3.69ghz on all cores at stock, so the difference to a [email protected] is insignificant anyway. It still performs much better than my old 2500K (much, much better in some cases), and when Zen+ comes along I'll be wary of falling into the same trap. This was only ever a "cheap" 6 core to tide me over until the 2nd gen 8-core models are available
But given the choice again I'd take a plain 1600, which would not upset the bios' voltage settings, would easily clock to the same, and is cheaper.
That said, it also runs ~3.69ghz on all cores at stock, so the difference to a [email protected] is insignificant anyway. It still performs much better than my old 2500K (much, much better in some cases), and when Zen+ comes along I'll be wary of falling into the same trap. This was only ever a "cheap" 6 core to tide me over until the 2nd gen 8-core models are available
But given the choice again I'd take a plain 1600, which would not upset the bios' voltage settings, would easily clock to the same, and is cheaper.
@humbug That GamersNexus guy is right actually, Intel CPUs will on average take a few seconds less to conclude turns than AMD ones and that skews the graphics benchmark results.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8400-cpu,5281-4.html
I'm pretty sure most Civ players would take their turns ending a few seconds faster rather than slower.
Edit: Did a Civ 6 AI Bench with my R7 1700 at 3.6Ghz, got an average turn time of 21.3 seconds, load was actually spread to all of the 16 threads impressively, but the first 3 threads took most of the load and seemed to be the bottlenecks.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8400-cpu,5281-4.html
I'm pretty sure most Civ players would take their turns ending a few seconds faster rather than slower.
Edit: Did a Civ 6 AI Bench with my R7 1700 at 3.6Ghz, got an average turn time of 21.3 seconds, load was actually spread to all of the 16 threads impressively, but the first 3 threads took most of the load and seemed to be the bottlenecks.
Last edited:
@humbug That GamersNexus guy is right actually, Intel CPUs will on average take a few seconds less to conclude turns than AMD ones and that skews the graphics benchmark results.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8400-cpu,5281-4.html
I'm pretty sure most Civ players would take their turns ending a few seconds faster rather than slower.
Edit: Did a Civ 6 AI Bench with my R7 1700 at 3.6Ghz, got an average turn time of 21.3 seconds, load was actually spread to all of the 16 threads impressively, but the first 3 threads took most of the load and seemed to be the bottlenecks.
My own benchmark, performance between an 8400 and an 8600K, CPU load 50 to 70%... on a 4.4Ghz 4690K, (the same as the 7600K) apparently my 3 year old 4 core is as fast as intel's latest 6 core.
You know what-else, playing the actual game what clocks i run that CPU at makes no difference to the time turns take, are you impressed with how powerful my crappy CPU is? i shouldn't bother with a 7600K, or an 8400 or even a 8600K as i'm not really seeing better performance and this CPU runs happily at 4.6Ghz if i want it too.
Like Futuremark 3DMark its a nonsense, its just something for reviewers to make meaningless content out of, its free advertisements for them.
Se for yourself the poor CPU load and the massive performance for an old weak CPU.
That's a meaningless synthetic benchmark which results are not replicated in game, its why most people use the game its self for measuring performance rather than its synthetic benchmark.
In the game its self the Ryzen CPU blow's the Intel ones out of the water.
Last edited:
My own benchmark, performance between an 8400 and an 8600K, CPU load 50 to 70%... on a 4.4Ghz 4690K, (the same as the 7600K) apparently my 3 year old 4 core is as fast as intel's latest 6 core.
You know what-else, playing the actual game what clocks i run that CPU at makes no difference to the time turns take, are you impressed with how powerful my crappy CPU is? i shouldn't bother with a 7600K, or an 8400 or even a 8600K as i'm not really seeing better performance and this CPU runs happily at 4.6Ghz if i want it too.
Like Futuremark 3DMark its a nonsense, its just something for reviewers to make meaningless content out of, its free advertisements for them.
Se for yourself the poor CPU load and the massive performance for an old weak CPU.
That's a meaningless synthetic benchmark which results are not replicated in game, its why most people use the game its self for measuring performance rather than its synthetic benchmark.
In the game its self the Ryzen CPU blow's the Intel ones out of the water.
I would argue that the time taken per turn is more favourable than higher fps in a strategy game.
Each to their own.