• 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.

Legend said:
So do you think the R5 will be performance competition for the 7700K, or the 1700X with fixes? Or both?
Click to expand...

Well the R5 1600X will be the sweet spot. It will have similar single core performance to an R7 1800X and 75% of the MT performance but will be Core i5 7600K money.

Plus even look at the computerbase.de article recently - games showed very little from going from 6C to 8C. From 4C to 6C it was a bigger jump.
 
Curlyriff said:
No problem :) those are just other advantages naturally for the 1700 as more cores means where games are not using more than 4C/8T you have the overhead there.
Click to expand...

So im still no better off..:D.. I'll keep ploughing these boards over weekend. I've promised my Dad i'd build his next weekend so I have a week with a PC....

Again thanks for the info
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Well the R5 1600X will be the sweet spot. It will have similar single core performance to an R7 1800X and 75% of the MT performance but will be Core i5 7600K money.

Plus even look at the computerbase.de article recently - games showed very little from going from 6C to 8C. From 4C to 6C it was a bigger jump.
Click to expand...


Yeah I'm not SO fussed over the cost personally... I would want the best performing CPU in gaming, and obviously as of now that's the 7700K. I don't see that the R5 is going to challenge it in raw performance numbers, only in respect to the performance/price ratio, in which it may very well crush it.
 
Stretlow said:
So im still no better off..:D.. I'll keep ploughing these boards over weekend. I've promised my Dad i'd build his next weekend so I have a week with a PC....

Again thanks for the info
Click to expand...

Probably not but I am not sure anyone really was expecting the new Ryzen stuff to be a magic pill for gaming. It only needs to be on par with that of the current 7700K in current games and offer more in future. Frostbite engine already does well with increased core/threads.

Some are suggesting that it's theoretical issues are that when games are bottlenecked with improved GPU's that the 1700 will have issues. I would suggest that by the time we have GPU's that are pushing those sorts of FPS levels (and we are talking constant 144fps @ 4K or 60fps 8K) because things always move on we will have so much more support for multicore/thread that the 4C/8T will be dying out and gamers will be aiming for 8C/16T anyways on a day to day.

With that, this is first node, Ryzen+ is meant to be a year away, probably a little longer and if it can get to 4.5-4.6GHz then we will see even less issue with playing older games limited to 4C/8T are not an issue at all. The architecture will mature, Bios updates will help, RAM will improve etc.
 
Its a hard choice, but lets do a reality check, We're talking top mainstream tier stuff here, in most cases there is margin of error differences between both platforms, both will have pros and cons BUT if you were to do the Pepsi challenge you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference at any resolution or any game.

Me personally i would wait for the Amd platform to mature a little before jumping on that boat, but the future does look good.
 
Legend said:
Yeah I'm not SO fussed over the cost personally... I would want the best performing CPU in gaming, and obviously as of now that's the 7700K. I don't see that the R5 is going to challenge it in raw performance numbers, only in respect to the performance/price ratio, in which it may very well crush it.
Click to expand...

I would say in true gaming performance benchmarks (which is Joker has done) it actually shows real world performance the same as the 7700K with some being slightly less and some slightly more.

The CPU limitation isn't there if we are saying that current games run just as well at current ultra/resolution and that then newer games/engines are already starting to head to more core/threads (such as BF1 multiplayer which the 7700K gets demolished by the 1700) and commitment from CA as an example of the close future then there to me is the reason to say that the 1700 is key to this.

Media as in all media always look at doom and gloom because it's honestly easier to quantify those things. They should have course done the tests they have to show the 720/1080p results where it is CPU bound with low level GPU's but they should have done a proper gaming test like Joker done showing what we will actually achieve for both the 1700 adn 7700k at true clock speeds with a number of different GPU's to see the affects of how our system will run for the next year or so.
 
Question that seems unclear to me as is exactly how much improvement might be seen over the coming months with Ryzen in games? Are we talking marginal, or to the point where the argument for it over the 7700K becomes far stronger? I see a lot of comments all over saying AMD rushed the release and the less than stellar gaming performance is more down to the motherboards not quite being ready, i.e BIOS, RAM etc. True, or mere wishful thinking and excuses?
 
What we know:
  • SMT not being used effectively by games.
  • Windows moving threads between cores. Resulting in a cache miss and a huge latency penalty.
  • Memory tables and support lacking on motherboards
  • Motherboards BIOS very immature. Updates will flood in over the first month I'm sure.
  • Reviewers given random motherboards and different BIOS, skewing results across the board.

To solve these, it's looking like BIOS updates, Windows updates and drivers, game patching, devs taking Ryzen into consideration.

Hopefully we'll see this over the next month and see improvements.
 
Honestly i expect great improvements in games after the bios/firmware/software gimmicks are ironed out.
The benchmarks showed that the single core performance is right where they said it will bee (Broadwell), and multi core performance is even better than intels. The power is there they just need to utilize it in games.
 
If I was to upgrade my computer now it would be a 1700, The grunt is there so it's only a matter of time before it's put to good use..
 
Its nice to see AMD finally able to compete again, Im almost tempted to get rid of my Z270 and cpu because im so bored with Intel now and fancy a play with something else.
 
I saw a YouTube video and the 1800x based pretty much between the 6900k & 7700k, the benchmarks were tested the normal, but games at 4K, however for a new chip it seems to be up with the big boys from Intel.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Well the R5 1600X will be the sweet spot. It will have similar single core performance to an R7 1800X and 75% of the MT performance but will be Core i5 7600K money.

Plus even look at the computerbase.de article recently - games showed very little from going from 6C to 8C. From 4C to 6C it was a bigger jump.
Click to expand...
I originally thought this but if the R5 1600X is say £50 less than the R7 1700, I actually think the latter will be the sweet spot, especially now that we know the R7 1700X and R7 1800X don't actually overclock any higher anyway. If there was an even cheaper R5 1600 that was 6c/12t then that'd probably be the sweet spot but it looks like that isn't happening. You're right that 4c -> 6c is a bigger jump than 6c -> 8c at the moment though, and with AM4 being around for 4 years it may be that a lot of people will go R5 1600X now and upgrade to an 8c/16t 2nd or 3rd generation Zen chip later.
 
DragonQ said:
I originally thought this but if the R5 1600X is say £50 less than the R7 1700, I actually think the latter will be the sweet spot, especially now that we know the R7 1700X and R7 1800X don't actually overclock any higher anyway.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point. With the near-instant revelation that the 1700 is virtually identical to the top-end parts, things have quickly turned into AMD disrupting their *own* pricing! They're mad lads over there in California!
 
DragonQ said:
I originally thought this but if the R5 1600X is say £50 less than the R7 1700, I actually think the latter will be the sweet spot, especially now that we know the R7 1700X and R7 1800X don't actually overclock any higher anyway. If there was an even cheaper R5 1600 that was 6c/12t then that'd probably be the sweet spot but it looks like that isn't happening. You're right that 4c -> 6c is a bigger jump than 6c -> 8c at the moment though, and with AM4 being around for 4 years it may be that a lot of people will go R5 1600X now and upgrade to an 8c/16t 2nd or 3rd generation Zen chip later.
Click to expand...

If you looked in the past,the die salvaged parts tended to consume less power than the fully enabled part even at the same TDP.

There are two models in the leaks - one at around £260ish which is 95W TDP and another one for less than that which has a 65W TDP.

I suspect the R5 1600X will consume less power than a R7 1700X or R7 1800X,and probably less than an overclocked R7 1700.

This is why I think it will be the sweet spot since you could get away with using a cheaper motherboard.
 
worth watching the Gamers Nexus video just posted - entitled "Explaining Ryzen Review Differences (Again)" - goes into gaming performance as well as other things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom