• 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.

Upgrade Advice - AMD or Intel

Panos said:
if you don't plan to use GTX1080ti get Ryzen.

also you can keep the board also for Ryzen2 in April, or Zen2/3 the years to come, as Intel has dead end boards
Click to expand...

Ryzen and 1080ti is fine for resolutions 1440p and above I don' see a difference in fps or smoothness. For 1080p I agree Intel is better
 
Ryzen is not the best for higher than 100 fps in games that don't bottleneck the gpu.

My 1080ti was starving at times with Ryzen at 1440p. I had no choice but to go with Intel.

Anything less than a 1080ti would be fine with Ryzen.
 
Davanius said:
Ryzen is not the best for higher than 100 fps in games that don't bottleneck the gpu.

My 1080ti was starving at times with Ryzen at 1440p. I had no choice but to go with Intel.

Anything less than a 1080ti would be fine with Ryzen.
Click to expand...

Wow really, I wonder why the ryzen can't handle a 1080ti. I wonder if the ryzen refresh would have sorted your problem out.
 
1080P unless you simply have to have every single frame possible then Ryzen is perfectly fine.

6PJs2oG.png
yIDsCed.png
1qhz7JM.png
sOLrXdV.png
eWrNQpH.png
TziutBx.png

The 1600 is an absolute bargain, and it's just a case of you weighing up if you want to drop £72 (45%) more on an 8600K for those few extra frames, and only then if you've got a very top end graphics card and a high refresh rate screen that can display them.
 
HeX said:
1080P unless you simply have to have every single frame possible then Ryzen is perfectly fine.

6PJs2oG.png
yIDsCed.png
1qhz7JM.png
sOLrXdV.png
eWrNQpH.png
TziutBx.png

The 1600 is an absolute bargain, and it's just a case of you weighing up if you want to drop £72 (45%) more on an 8600K for those few extra frames, and only then if you've got a very top end graphics card and a high refresh rate screen that can display them.
Click to expand...

Wow, yes for literally only a handful of extra frames, it's really not worth that extra £72. Especially on a 980ti and a tv screen in the living room. Looks like a Ryzen will be best. Think I'll keep my eye out for a good motherboard on special and get that. Then wait for the refresh and see if that drives the price down of a 1600x. Thanks for the Help :D
 
This was my own findings when I upgraded as both Gears and Destiny 2 had really noticeable frame drops and minimums that were too low for my liking.
Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9Ghz.

vsync%20off_zpsx730gfvf.png

Intel 8700K @ 4.8 Ghz.

8700k%204.9oc%202ndrun_zps2sjdf1co.png

Granted this is a benchmark but in online games I would see drops to 90 fps on the Ryzen while on the Intel it's locked to 144 fps and never drops even 1 frame. Unlocked it averages over 180 fps on ultra with max frames going over 200. My monitor is 165 Hz so that's why I keep it at 144.

During public events I saw drops to 50 fps in Destiny 2 on the Ryzen while on the 8700k the minimum was 90 fps.

I agree that the Ryzen cpus are great in gpu limited situations but if you need higher than 100 fps consistently then I would go with Intel or wait until Ryzen refresh which is soon.

Those benchmarks in the above post are with a Vega gpu which may be more limiting. 1080ti is faster and consider the next generation will be faster as well.
 
Davanius said:
This was my own findings when I upgraded as both Gears and Destiny 2 had really noticeable frame drops and minimums that were too low for my liking.
Ryzen 1600 @ 3.9Ghz.

vsync%20off_zpsx730gfvf.png

Intel 8700K @ 4.8 Ghz.

8700k%204.9oc%202ndrun_zps2sjdf1co.png

Granted this is a benchmark but in online games I would see drops to 90 fps on the Ryzen while on the Intel it's locked to 144 fps and never drops even 1 frame. Unlocked it averages over 180 fps on ultra with max frames going over 200. My monitor is 165 Hz so that's why I keep it at 144.

During public events I saw drops to 50 fps in Destiny 2 on the Ryzen while on the 8700k the minimum was 90 fps.

I agree that the Ryzen cpus are great in gpu limited situations but if you need higher than 100 fps consistently then I would go with Intel or wait until Ryzen refresh which is soon.

Those benchmarks in the above post are with a Vega gpu which may be more limiting. 1080ti is faster and consider the next generation will be faster as well.
Click to expand...

Shill!
Good to see other users posting their experiences and results.
I made the same move for your reasons, 144hz is better on Intel. Even at 1440p which we will see with ampere
 
Humbug's combination is great and even a 1080 would be alright. I didn't intend on getting a 1080ti but when Vega didn't work out for me and mining drove up prices I said sod it.

I did consider selling the 1080ti and getting a 1080 at one point but news of the 6 core Intels came out so I waited for that as I will keep the cpu longer than the gpu.
 
Davanius said:
Humbug's combination is great and even a 1080 would be alright. I didn't intend on getting a 1080ti but when Vega didn't work out for me and mining drove up prices I said sod it.

I did consider selling the 1080ti and getting a 1080 at one point but news of the 6 core Intels came out so I waited for that as I will keep the cpu longer than the gpu.
Click to expand...

I do agree if you're getting a 1080TI the only way to go is an 8700K with a very good cooler to get the most clocks out of it.

GTX 1080 or below a Ryzen 1600 will do just as good 'a job, its one of those things where if you are budgeted GTX 1060 and were looking at an Intel CPU get the 1600 and with the difference get the GTX 1070 instead, win win :)
 
I don't agree with all X CPU is only for 1080p and Y CPU is for 4K stuff. There are games which run perfectly fine with Ryzen compared to CFL at high framerate at 1080p,but there are games which still have CPU bottlenecks with Ryzen when compared to CFL even at qHD and 4K,ie,poor optimised titles that usually thread very poorly or inefficiently.

So if you are looking at a CPU,look at the titles you play and intend to play,and look at the framerates and frametimes you are getting,and get the cheapest one which does the job longterm.

Look at the numbers - its no point getting a CFL CPU if its like 200FPS vs 170FPS,but it would be another thing if you had 50FPS minimums on CFL against 35FPS on Ryzen,etc.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I don't agree with all X CPU is only for 1080p and Y CPU is for 4K stuff. There are games which run perfectly fine with Ryzen compared to CFL at high framerate at 1080p,but there are games which still have CPU bottlenecks with Ryzen when compared to CFL even at qHD and 4K,ie,poor optimised titles that usually thread very poorly or inefficiently.

So if you are looking at a CPU,look at the titles you play and intend to play,and look at the framerates and frametimes you are getting,and get the cheapest one which does the job longterm.

Look at the numbers - its no point getting a CFL CPU if its like 200FPS vs 170FPS,but it would be another thing if you had 50FPS minimums on CFL against 35FPS on Ryzen,etc.
Click to expand...

And reviewers who innocently don't really know what they are doing, they all think they do but the truth is most don't understand how CPU's work in games and what they do.

I had a debate with Steve from Hardware Unboxed on this, i explained to him that reducing Graphics Image Quality settings actually reduces the draw calls on CPU's, when you set low low IQ settings to test how fast the CPU in in said game what you are actually doing it reducing the load on the CPU, slower CPU's will have an easier time of it and move up closer to faster CPU's because you are reducing the CPU bottleneck, exactly the opposite of what you are trying to do.
His rebuttal was "yeah well our testing shows this is not the case" a very typical "how dare you question our methods, what do you know, pleb"

The next review, in, i think it was Over Watch, the frame rates on Ryzen get closer to Intel's faster CPU's the more he turned the Image Quality settings down, his comment to that was "oh this is strange, we don't understand this and need to investigate further"
When i watched that i was like: "WHAT??????? YOU ####'ing stupid idiotic ARROGANT ######" he read what i said to him and just dismissed it out of hand without even thinking about it, that is a case of someone wrong thinking its not possible for them to be wrong.
 
Getting a ryzen with up to a 1080 is poor advice imo. What happens when you want to upgrade that gpu? You will have to upgrade the cpu at the same time to avoid bottlenecking.
Just get the fastest you can now and don't worry about it bottlenecking future cards.
 
gavinh87 said:
Getting a ryzen with up to a 1080 is poor advice imo. What happens when you want to upgrade that gpu? You will have to upgrade the cpu at the same time to avoid bottlenecking.
Just get the fastest you can now and don't worry about it bottlenecking future cards.
Click to expand...

Same goes for Intel only with Intel you also have to change the motherboard.
 
gavinh87 said:
Getting a ryzen with up to a 1080 is poor advice imo. What happens when you want to upgrade that gpu? You will have to upgrade the cpu at the same time to avoid bottlenecking.
Just get the fastest you can now and don't worry about it bottlenecking future cards.
Click to expand...

Do you really thing a 1600 will bottleneck a 1080?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom