Let's remember that gaming performance will be most likely limited by GPU when talking about all these high performing CPU's. Even with 1080ti you are most likely to play in 4k then Ryzen will be just as good as any other CPU. It's just silly to chose a powerful CPU based on how fast it is in games, because most i5, i7, and Ryzen simply very good and will not limit gaming performance for typical user. That's for now, but Ryzen is future proof and will give you extra comfort when any additional processes running on your system, when quad core would simply not have enough grunt.
-
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.
- Thread starter geordiejc
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,223
- Location
- North East England
He doesn't know what a GPU bottleneck is.
It wasn't pointless. How do you play your games? I certainly play all mine on ultra and so I want to know what I am actually going to get, not a theoretical performance based on artificially changing what I will be doing with it. There are plenty of reviews out there if you want that.
I am happy to see what I will get like for like if I brought a system and used it as expected. I can now clearly see the side by side comparison of games I play, I can see the FPS are similar if not better at times and I can see that it is smoother on the Ryzen CPU clearly compared to what the 7700K would give me. (Certainly more stutter/less smooth gameplay on The Division with the 7700k compared to Ryzen regardless of compression of the video or similar)
He also explains everything in why he is doing it that way and how it works.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 18,168
- Location
- West Side
The AMD Ryzen 7: plenty of power, but underwhelming gaming performance
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Yep thats real world scenario on how you would game, but no, your wrong, because your supposed to game at 1080p with all settings on low dont you know?
The fact of the matter is, the 1700 gives as much performance as a 7700k in real world gaming, your running at 1080gtx at 1080p 144hz? fine, yes people do that, your running 1440p or 4k, the cpu will be the same, i mean seriously, who really plays CPU bound nowadays? go check the GPU section, once people ridicule you for being cpu bound they tell you to buy a better gpu / cpu etc etc.
At the end of the day, people are skewing results to fit their agendas, yep im doing the same, my agenda is that the 1700 is a perfectly fine CPU For current and future high end gaming.
why cater to the people that are gpu limited?
why not actually test the cpu
if you taking the time to do all them tests is it really much more time to bump down off ultra for a run?
the stutters are interesting but it doesnt tell me enough...
its not even clear the cpu is causing the stutters
Most people forget that even with similar avg fps you'll still see lower minimums if the CPU isn't up to snuff. So the gameplay with the 7700K at 5 Ghz is probably going to be a lot smoother at every resolution if it handles the game better at 720p.
Em its a bloody GTX 1080 being used at 1080p, sorry but where in the real world do you say I brought an £800 GPU and don't play games at least at 1080p ultra with more playing at 1440p & 4k when using that GPU.
Further to that the reason is why would you cater for the tiniest of people who are not GPU bound?
I don't know anyone who isn't GPU bound because I don't know anyone who plays on a desktop at 1080p low settings that would be spending £300 on a CPU and then have a £100 GPU. The real world situation is that people are playing games at max settings and at least at 1080p now (desktop only here) and thus I want to see this.
You are correct in that there isn't enough about the stutter but considering again the systems are same bar CPU/Mobo then it again going to be what we as gamers see. I would hazard to say that it isn't the GPU in that it would be on both systems otherwise.
That comes down to the architecture, even in the results where the 1700 is being beaten by the 7700k (which I think are wrong based on the footage shown and the testing done) then the low fps numbers are better for the 1700 so your statement doesn't run true in this case.
its a damned if you do, damned if you don't argument. Absolutely testing gaming in a CPU limited situation gives a much better like for like comparison one CPU to the other. But its also true that most people actually game in a GPU limited situation.
Honestly I think people are putting too much stock on certain numbers in order to "prove their point" rather than looking at the situation as a whole. From what we've seen the 7700k does give you a higher maximum FPS in gaming. The various ryzens give you much better performance in non gaming high threaded applications. In most cases giving near 6900k performance.
I honestly believe that background tweaking will allow for a small performance boost to Ryzen in the coming months, but I don't think it will ever really be a match in gaming for the 7700k, at least until we see games designed from the ground up to make use of the ryzens number of cores. But I also think that in most cases the ryzen provides pretty good gaming performance. So it comes down to a choice, if you just want to game, stick to intel, if you want to do other stuff as well get amd.
What I've seen has been more positive than negative in terms of what AMD have achieved. And I hope it leads to continued competitiveness
Honestly I think people are putting too much stock on certain numbers in order to "prove their point" rather than looking at the situation as a whole. From what we've seen the 7700k does give you a higher maximum FPS in gaming. The various ryzens give you much better performance in non gaming high threaded applications. In most cases giving near 6900k performance.
I honestly believe that background tweaking will allow for a small performance boost to Ryzen in the coming months, but I don't think it will ever really be a match in gaming for the 7700k, at least until we see games designed from the ground up to make use of the ryzens number of cores. But I also think that in most cases the ryzen provides pretty good gaming performance. So it comes down to a choice, if you just want to game, stick to intel, if you want to do other stuff as well get amd.
What I've seen has been more positive than negative in terms of what AMD have achieved. And I hope it leads to continued competitiveness
Ryzen looks like an amazing chip whatever way you look at it and I'm glad amd made something more than competitive this time. We should be more than happy that intel finally got what they deserved, some competition. They've had it far too easy.
Pretty much as said I could live with either a ryzen 1700 or a 7700k for what my main rig is designed to do. Play games at 4k @ 60fps with settings on ultra except for some dog games that play like cr@p whatever you use. Infact I know both are overkill for what I need but the 7700k does offer a ultimately much smoother gameplay over my old 3770k.
Which leads me on to say. I've had the smoothest gameplay yet on a kabylake system so its unfair to point blame directly at the 7700k. All games I have tried that can run a decent framerate (90% of my games) do so without any visual drops in framerates. Some games like mafia 3 are just destined for the junk pile.
Pretty much as said I could live with either a ryzen 1700 or a 7700k for what my main rig is designed to do. Play games at 4k @ 60fps with settings on ultra except for some dog games that play like cr@p whatever you use. Infact I know both are overkill for what I need but the 7700k does offer a ultimately much smoother gameplay over my old 3770k.
Which leads me on to say. I've had the smoothest gameplay yet on a kabylake system so its unfair to point blame directly at the 7700k. All games I have tried that can run a decent framerate (90% of my games) do so without any visual drops in framerates. Some games like mafia 3 are just destined for the junk pile.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
As Curlyriff pointed out, the minimums on the 1700 appear much better than they do the 7700k, there is a fair few videos and even reviews i believe that back this up....
This is how I feel, I do believe that Zen+ will be the best but I might bite before that if everything including RAM speed is fixed, Imagine how this would run if it could use 4000mhz RAM
Hardly think that my one purchase is going to do much, it's businesses buying in massive stock that will help them more than anything.
Honestly it isn't though. The CPU has to perform the same regardless of vendor because that is what you will be doing with it. Why is that so hard to understand.
What is silly is to suggest that you should only test when there is a theoretical performance benefit for a CPU because you have created a case that has no real world application to what any consumer will actually see. I said that I don't know anyone that is not GPU limited. Not most people, there is no one limited by the CPU because no-one plays at 720p low settings to be so.
I added the bit about the fact that it is even more so when people are spending 'X' amount on a GPU as well.
Sorry Mei but I honestly think your really off the mark on this. It is a system as a whole that needs testing. It doesn't matter if it's the best CPU in the world if because no matter what you pair it too something else creates a bottleneck.
its a damned if you do, damned if you don't argument. Absolutely testing gaming in a CPU limited situation gives a much better like for like comparison one CPU to the other. But its also true that most people actually game in a GPU limited situation.
Honestly I think people are putting too much stock on certain numbers in order to "prove their point" rather than looking at the situation as a whole. From what we've seen the 7700k does give you a higher maximum FPS in gaming. The various ryzens give you much better performance in non gaming high threaded applications. In most cases giving near 6900k performance.
I honestly believe that background tweaking will allow for a small performance boost to Ryzen in the coming months, but I don't think it will ever really be a match in gaming for the 7700k, at least until we see games designed from the ground up to make use of the ryzens number of cores. But I also think that in most cases the ryzen provides pretty good gaming performance. So it comes down to a choice, if you just want to game, stick to intel, if you want to do other stuff as well get amd.
What I've seen has been more positive than negative in terms of what AMD have achieved. And I hope it leads to continued competitiveness
i already said id buy a 1700 over a 7700k (i think!) i just wish they did better tests
they not doing AMD any favours with them weak reviews, just makes them look bad
the "indepth" review is even worse where his whole chart is gpu limited, and it only shows the avg
i think im justified in calling it pointless
no one is ever cpu limited when playing games? rly now?
The 7700K is indeed smoother than previous older CPU's such as the 3770k because the architecture has matured etc. What is surprising though is that on Ryzen it appears to be smoother than the 7700K and obvious in games like The Division which I am surprised to see. Some people have suggested the stutter is made up because it not been reported before. However I think compared to what we had before the 7700K was super smooth and thus in comparison there was no issue.
What Ryzen has done is highlighted that actually there is more smoothness available to us based on what is actually shown in video.