• 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 and Gaming results.

I would suggest that the 1700 for the price will still hold up fine. Anyone expecting it to be beat the i7 7700K out the box was not thinking it through.

It clearly is the one to have out the two even if you are loosing a few FPS. I would suggest you all ignore the low res testing. This video linked over places really shows why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvdSnEbL50&t=1s

With that in mind, what it actually says is buy the Ryzen chip and expect it to increase performance over the 7700K in a few years time and so you can just happily upgrade your GPU knowing that the CPU is doing just fine and giving no such bottleneck. It also I think proves that games are becoming more depending on cores/threads and shows the improvement as that increases and should do so for the future especially if devs move away from focusing on just Intel in the CPU side.
 
if you think in a few years time a 7700k is going to be a issue with gaming then so will a 1700 :p

they will be fine.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
if you think in a few years time a 7700k is going to be a issue with gaming then so will a 1700 :p

they will be fine.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that at all. Dg honestly a lot of what you put that I have read seems so far off the mark it's impossible to talk about. But I will give it a go.

Right now it appears at true gaming that the 1700 is around 15% slower than the 7700K for the most part in games at 1080p & slightly less to around 10% at 1440p compared to the 7700K. Going forward the Adored video showed that AMD closed the gap as things improved and didn't get further apart like the 720p videos are alluding too.

Now if that stays the trend and there is no reason not too, then it will indeed close if not overtake as things progress. If a game is currently showing that the CPU is creating FPS at say 100fps on the 1700 and 110fps on the same GPU at the same settings. Then as the GPU increases and we are able to get 135fps on the 7700K in 3 years, maybe we can get to 144fps on the 1700 which then means those lovely 144Mhz monitors are being fully utilised.

Now with that in mind, that is a long term projection but that is what happened between the i5 2500k vs the FX-8350 where the CPU performs in future improves with the FX unlike the i5. People all over hear are saying that 1080p and 1440p results are pointless because what about in 4 years when the CPU is old and it is already showing to be slower when the bottleneck. Their argument it would get worse and so that is why to show 720p at lowest settings. The whole AdoredTV video shows exactly this to be false very quickly and with true differences.

It means that you could purchase the 1700 now and know that the likelyhood of improvement will be there for it, however for the 7700K it looks like it will tail off or stagnate (which incidentally is similar to AMD & Nvidia in regards to GPU's that do the same with the difference is that AMD have been too far behind to ignore the difference the last gen or two which is not the case for the CPU).

So I would say that it is very much just trying to point out that if you are actually happy with the fps that Ryzen is showing now at true gaming resolution then the 720p low/lowest vids should be completely ignored as trivial and pointless.

With that and the known issues, I would expect to see Ryzen over the next 6 months increase their performance by 5-10% across existing games and as new games are being developed then an increase further of 20%-25% over the next few years.

AMD certainly seem to be very committed to improving gaming performance by providing over 1000 developer kits and partnering with studios to make sure they extract performance from their architecture.
 
Martini1991 said:
You can improve gaming performance by disabling SMT and then still smashing a 7700K in 8 threaded scenarios.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was of course taking the average across all games now to the average results which pegs the figures I put above.

1700 across all games
Lowest FPS 89fps
Average FPS 100fps

7700K across all games
Lowest FPS 100fps
Average FPS 115fps

So with that yes there are a few that are higher than the 7700K and this will get to be more as I alluded to in my post but the premise that although it is lower now it wont be and although people are trying to test at 720p to show future performance, it is just wrong.
 
as much as i like amd the company they are more favoured than intel do you really expect the performance to get better ?

i say this based on previous chips that didnt.what we are having now is the same old stuff from amd cpu wise.seen it it with every cpu since phenoms were launched.yes i owned many.

nothing much will change now for gaming and cpu from what we have currently. why ? consoles are out, pretty new.so you got years yet.even in two years time for eg say your ryzen chip takes a small lead and be honest even if it improves the gap wont be massive anyway.it will be a couple of fps either way.

so basically what it comes down to is do you want the best performance now, known for your cpu in games ? if answer is yes you pick a 7700k. do you want the best in the future for gaming and dont know and want to gamble based on speculation pick a amd ryzen chip.thats the truth.

they arent bad chips id buy one .
 
The benchmarks don't tell all. If all you do is game and only game with nothing else running, then in the short term the 7700k is best.

but if you do more than just game and have other things running the ryzen part is better in the short and long term.

you have to remember that they treat game benchmark Ms with clean systems, no background programs etc.

I often game, browse, watch videos, maybe code a bit all at the same time.
 
In GTAV at least, I find playing and streaming the game has about a 10 to 15 % hit on game performance. If Ryzen can cut that hit out, Ryzen right now will be just as good as Intel for me, and maybe better if it can provide better stream quality at the same time. This is the reason I have opted for Ryzen rather than sticking to Intel (I game at 1440p so a capture card route is not an option).
Outside of streaming, if Ryzen can make games smoother I would settle for 10 to 15% lower fps over choosing Intel. At 1440p the gap doesn't seem to be that wide.
 
Last edited:
I know a lot of people have been comparing 8c performance and how quickly devs take it up with the old piledriver.

Quite frankly with how AMD have been with their Graphics drivers lately (on point!) I believe (and hope) they will have the developers on board to take advantage of these extra cores.

I got the RX480 and until I upgrade I can't use it to it's full potential but even then I have noticed small improvements with each driver update.

If their support on the CPU side is as good as their current GPU side then i'm not too worried. (On that note i think i've convinced myself to go for a 1700)
 
I am currently using an old FX8350 @4.5Ghz for VR and the stuttering of the Intel chips is a concern, for VR you need smooth delivery, if the top end FPS is down a little but smooth I believe it would offer a better overall experience.

To be honest this old FX chip has handled all the VR I have thrown at it :D
 
I don't think anyone should regret going Ryzen. On the contrary, I think what I've seen a lot of in this thread and elsewhere on the web, is more than a few 7700K owners critiquing Ryzen in a veiled and perhaps subconscious effort to justify their own purchase :p. Going forwards, there is no way Ryzen performance won't improve. It's already a hit, game devs will start throwing resources at optimising their existing and future games for it. At higher resolutions the bottleneck is far more GPU centered anyway, and an ever increasing % gamers are moving to 1440p/21:9/4K monitors, so that obviously helps. All this 720p nonsense is just laughable, I don't even pay attention to 1080p anymore as I haven't been at that resolution for years!
 
I would wait for the BIOS, drivers and Windows update to be sure. But so far Ryzen looks good value and 8 cores at around 4.0Ghz seems to be future proof compared to quad cores. Assuming all goes as expected and memory speeds improve a 1700 will be my choice over a 7700k.

It all depends what you want and need.
 
Curlyriff said:
Yeah I was of course taking the average across all games now to the average results which pegs the figures I put above.

1700 across all games
Lowest FPS 89fps
Average FPS 100fps

7700K across all games
Lowest FPS 100fps
Average FPS 115fps

So with that yes there are a few that are higher than the 7700K and this will get to be more as I alluded to in my post but the premise that although it is lower now it wont be and although people are trying to test at 720p to show future performance, it is just wrong.
Click to expand...
Whilst I still feel AMD Has got a long way to go to sort out Ryzen to be a credible chip as a 60hz gamer the 1700 is looking increasingly tempting!
 
Safetytrousers said:
In GTAV at least, I find playing and streaming the game has about a 10 to 15 % hit on game performance. If Ryzen can cut that hit out, Ryzen right now will be just as good as Intel for me, and maybe better if it can provide better stream quality at the same time. This is the reason I have opted for Ryzen rather than sticking to Intel (I game at 1440p so a capture card route is not an option).
Outside of streaming, if Ryzen can make games smoother I would settle for 10 to 15% lower fps over choosing Intel. At 1440p the gap doesn't seem to be that wide.
Click to expand...
In GTA V my 7700k is barely above idle, seriously it could run stress testing in the background!

That said I do get stutter and I like you would accept lower fps for a smoother ride.
 
All this talk of future proofing is irrelevant! In two years we'll be on newer cpus, probably intel 6 core 6ghz behemoths making current cpus of either flavour look bad.

I see this so much in these forums, the 'waiting' the 'hoping' the expectation that today's purchase will come good in a few years time! Buy what's useful to you now, not what someone else has told you it might be a few years down the line. Cutting edge tech is very short lived.
 
Brazo said:
All this talk of future proofing is irrelevant! In two years we'll be on newer cpus, probably intel 6 core 6ghz behemoths making current cpus of either flavour look bad.

I see this so much in these forums, the 'waiting' the 'hoping' the expectation that today's purchase will come good in a few years time! Buy what's useful to you now, not what someone else has told you it might be a few years down the line. Cutting edge tech is very short lived.
Click to expand...

LOL yeah Intel has made so much ground in the last 2 years they make their previous stuff look bad, thats why so many users are wondering "should i upgrade from my 2500k / 2600k?"

Heh
 
SiDeards73 said:
LOL yeah Intel has made so much ground in the last 2 years they make their previous stuff look bad, thats why so many users are wondering "should i upgrade from my 2500k / 2600k?"

Heh
Click to expand...

Well coffeelake will have 6 cores and were already at over 5ghz with Kabylake.

as the AMD fans say, wait and see...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom