Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Amd almost had me lol.

13

Comments

  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    mbrodie said:
    also in terms of gaming performance the 7700k is only marginally  better than 1800x

    it's like 5 - 8% or something in most titles and even then we're talking about 100+ fps and ryzen still runs said games smooth as butter.

    where the 1800x shines is in comparison to the extreme intel chips where it is half the price and outperforms the $1500 chip by a large margin in non gaming activities than it loses to the 7700k in games.

    so overall the 1800x is a chip and a windows fix is incoming for the single core performance issues which will make it better again and probably put it over the 7700k in gaming.
    Yeah see that kind of thing got me confused, the 1700 is a 1800x clocked lower. The 1700 gets the same as the 1800x at 4.0. Which these people said wasnt hard to get, or did they have to change the cooler it came from. http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191/7

    So there is the better value. It costs 309 on ebay. The i7700k is 329, or the i5 7600k is 239.99 but i was adding 87 dollars for a cooler for them. When the 309 1700 comes with one. 
  • mbrodiembrodie Member RarePosts: 1,504
    edited March 2017
    mbrodie said:
    also in terms of gaming performance the 7700k is only marginally  better than 1800x

    it's like 5 - 8% or something in most titles and even then we're talking about 100+ fps and ryzen still runs said games smooth as butter.

    where the 1800x shines is in comparison to the extreme intel chips where it is half the price and outperforms the $1500 chip by a large margin in non gaming activities than it loses to the 7700k in games.

    so overall the 1800x is a chip and a windows fix is incoming for the single core performance issues which will make it better again and probably put it over the 7700k in gaming.
    Yeah see that kind of thing got me confused, the 1700 is a 1800x clocked lower. The 1700 gets the same as the 1800x at 4.0. Which these people said wasnt hard to get, or did they have to change the cooler it came from. http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191/7

    So there is the better value. It costs 309 on ebay. The i7700k is 329, or the i5 7600k is 239.99 but i was adding 87 dollars for a cooler for them. When the 309 1700 comes with one. 
    i believe the stock cooler should be fine, 

    everything i've read said that clocking it to 4.0 on the stock cooler is basically the same as an 1800x on a standard cooler like not water cooling or the super high end coolers you can buy, it doesn't really run much hotter than it did at stock levels. so you can save your money not buying a cooler unless you really want one...

    personally back in november i built a new rig, should have waited all the new stuff and i already have a Asus Strix RoG 1080 OC something something that runs amazing, but i can't look past the value of the 1080Ti which is basically titan level performance at half the price, probably going to buy one...

    if you want a ryzen get the 1700 and overclock it to 4.0 on stock cooler and the money you save buy a 1080Ti instead of a 1080 but wait until the custom cards come out... ignore the founders edition for now.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    mbrodie said:
    also in terms of gaming performance the 7700k is only marginally  better than 1800x

    it's like 5 - 8% or something in most titles and even then we're talking about 100+ fps and ryzen still runs said games smooth as butter.
    Erm, no. It is more like 20% difference compared to 7700k.

    R7 is about as fast as 7600k for gaming/general purpose computer and as such there is no reason to get Ryzen over Intel...
  • mbrodiembrodie Member RarePosts: 1,504
    edited March 2017
    Gdemami said:
    mbrodie said:
    also in terms of gaming performance the 7700k is only marginally  better than 1800x

    it's like 5 - 8% or something in most titles and even then we're talking about 100+ fps and ryzen still runs said games smooth as butter.
    Erm, no. It is more like 20% difference compared to 7700k.

    R7 is about as fast as 7600k for gaming/general purpose computer and as such there is no reason to get Ryzen over Intel...
    same could be said that there is no reason to get intel over and as for your 20%



    i mean that looks like 20% to me right

    http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/

    when you overclock a 1700 to 3.9ghz it performs as well as a 7700k within a 5 - 8% margin
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    mbrodie said:
    same could be said that there is no reason to get intel over and as for your 20%



    i mean that looks like 20% to me right

    http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/

    when you overclock a 1700 to 3.9ghz it performs as well as a 7700k within a 5 - 8% margin
    Minimal framerates is what matters.

    http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/page5.html

  • mbrodiembrodie Member RarePosts: 1,504
    Gdemami said:
    mbrodie said:
    same could be said that there is no reason to get intel over and as for your 20%



    i mean that looks like 20% to me right

    http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/

    when you overclock a 1700 to 3.9ghz it performs as well as a 7700k within a 5 - 8% margin
    Minimal framerates is what matters.

    http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/page5.html

    none of them being an overclocked 1700... so irrelevant 
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    edited March 2017
    Gdemami said:
    mbrodie said:
    also in terms of gaming performance the 7700k is only marginally  better than 1800x

    it's like 5 - 8% or something in most titles and even then we're talking about 100+ fps and ryzen still runs said games smooth as butter.
    Erm, no. It is more like 20% difference compared to 7700k.

    R7 is about as fast as 7600k for gaming/general purpose computer and as such there is no reason to get Ryzen over Intel...
    As usual you spout complete nonsense . why post?
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    mbrodie said:
    mbrodie said:
    also in terms of gaming performance the 7700k is only marginally  better than 1800x

    it's like 5 - 8% or something in most titles and even then we're talking about 100+ fps and ryzen still runs said games smooth as butter.

    where the 1800x shines is in comparison to the extreme intel chips where it is half the price and outperforms the $1500 chip by a large margin in non gaming activities than it loses to the 7700k in games.

    so overall the 1800x is a chip and a windows fix is incoming for the single core performance issues which will make it better again and probably put it over the 7700k in gaming.
    Yeah see that kind of thing got me confused, the 1700 is a 1800x clocked lower. The 1700 gets the same as the 1800x at 4.0. Which these people said wasnt hard to get, or did they have to change the cooler it came from. http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-overclocking-best-ryzen-processor_192191/7

    So there is the better value. It costs 309 on ebay. The i7700k is 329, or the i5 7600k is 239.99 but i was adding 87 dollars for a cooler for them. When the 309 1700 comes with one. 
    i believe the stock cooler should be fine, 

    everything i've read said that clocking it to 4.0 on the stock cooler is basically the same as an 1800x on a standard cooler like not water cooling or the super high end coolers you can buy, it doesn't really run much hotter than it did at stock levels. so you can save your money not buying a cooler unless you really want one...

    personally back in november i built a new rig, should have waited all the new stuff and i already have a Asus Strix RoG 1080 OC something something that runs amazing, but i can't look past the value of the 1080Ti which is basically titan level performance at half the price, probably going to buy one...

    if you want a ryzen get the 1700 and overclock it to 4.0 on stock cooler and the money you save buy a 1080Ti instead of a 1080 but wait until the custom cards come out... ignore the founders edition for now.
    I already bought the founder edition :) I actually like the looks of that one better than the others that come out. I don't mind the vacuum noiseGdemami said:
    mbrodie said:
    also in terms of gaming performance the 7700k is only marginally  better than 1800x

    it's like 5 - 8% or something in most titles and even then we're talking about 100+ fps and ryzen still runs said games smooth as butter.
    Erm, no. It is more like 20% difference compared to 7700k.

    R7 is about as fast as 7600k for gaming/general purpose computer and as such there is no reason to get Ryzen over Intel...

    Yep thats what I thought. Which isnt true at all once you do 4k gaming. Infact most of the time it is the same or faster at 4k. mbrodie said:
    Gdemami said:
    mbrodie said:
    same could be said that there is no reason to get intel over and as for your 20%



    i mean that looks like 20% to me right

    http://www.toptengamer.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-vs-intel-i7-7700k-1800x/

    when you overclock a 1700 to 3.9ghz it performs as well as a 7700k within a 5 - 8% margin
    Minimal framerates is what matters.

    http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/page5.html

    none of them being an overclocked 1700... so irrelevant 
    Yeah I wish people would stop even comparing the 1700 with out it being overclocked, or just using a 1800x, it really is misleading. Especially if your coming from intel, where there is a difference between a 7700 or a 7700k. Or how I found out was a 2600 i bought, vs a 2600k. Ozmodan said:
    Gdemami said:
    mbrodie said:
    also in terms of gaming performance the 7700k is only marginally  better than 1800x

    it's like 5 - 8% or something in most titles and even then we're talking about 100+ fps and ryzen still runs said games smooth as butter.
    Erm, no. It is more like 20% difference compared to 7700k.

    R7 is about as fast as 7600k for gaming/general purpose computer and as such there is no reason to get Ryzen over Intel...
    As usual you spout complete nonsense . why post?
    Prolly either confused like I was or is a fan boy, I dono. 
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    Yeah I wish people would stop even comparing the 1700 with out it being overclocked, or just using a 1800x, it really is misleading. 
    Do you even look at benchmarks you are posting?

    Nothing misleading there. The difference between OC 1700 and stock 1800x is at best 5% FPS, in most cases irrelevant difference and still lags behind 7700k by good margin.
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Wow I just looked at the new samples and these Ryzen chips are performing even better then their projections.  They have definitely found a solid place in the high range market with the exception of the ultra high range.  For now that looks good but all Intel has to do is put 8 cores in their chips and its the graveyard for AMD once again.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • 13lake13lake Member UncommonPosts: 719
    edited March 2017
    Multiple small reviewers, and users from overclockers.co.uk, overclock.net and overlock3d.net said that subjectively they feel like ryzen 7 has better and more stable minimal frames, and feels like a way smoother experience compared to 5.0Ghz 7700k (on 1080p).
    On 2k and 4k it comes within the margin of error and destroys 7700k for max fps in every game except in Rise of Tomb Raider.

    P.S. just to clarify when i say destroys 7700k what i mean in this case is that my personal definition is "gets close to within a margin of error", so my definition of "destroys" is completely different that everyone else's on the planet, so deal with it :)
  • 13lake13lake Member UncommonPosts: 719
    edited March 2017
    Gdemami said:
    Do you even look at benchmarks you are posting?

    Nothing misleading there. The difference between OC 1700 and stock 1800x is at best 5% FPS, in most cases irrelevant difference and still lags behind 7700k by good margin.
    And btw, post me what you feel like is 1800x stock cinebench single and multi score, and lets compare that to 1892 and see the difference in at least synthetic %

    1892 is multi cinebench R15 score for 
    R7 1700 @ 4.1Ghz
    3200MHZ CL14

    5960x @4.3Ghz 3200Mhz CL14 = 1736, and 4.0 1700 is 1851

    AMD RYZEN 1800x @3.6 - @3.7 (XFR) mem@2666 - Cinebench = 1537
    Post edited by 13lake on
  • Veexer_NuiVeexer_Nui Member UncommonPosts: 268
    edited March 2017
    Just give it time, the new amd sdk was released and you can be sure the next generation of consoles will be using amd like all the previous ones. So most new games will start to support it. Servers are already moving to Ryzen after the latest linux kernal update.

    Intel wont release 8core anytime soon. Especially when AMD is now the most energy efficient with a 65w 8core.  And there's nothing stopping amd from doubling their chip, 16core, 130w. Still more efficient than Intel.

    Archeage EU - Nui

  • 13lake13lake Member UncommonPosts: 719
    edited March 2017
    (1892-1537)/((1892 +1537)/2) x 100 = 20.7%

    (1892-1635)/((1892 +1635)/2) x 100 = 14.6%

    (1892-1537)/(1537) x 100 = 23%

    (1892-1635)/(1635) x 100 = 15.71%

    A little bit more than 5%, at least synthetic, it's even more in 1080p gaming.

    Stop loling and please post what you "feel" is 1800x multi cinebench R15 score, ...
    Post edited by 13lake on
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,412
    You should definitely wait on Ryzen if you go that route. With the Core i5 7600 you know what you will be getting. Ryzen right now is like a game with a lot of potential. Delivering on it is a big IF. Right now to get maximum memory bandwidth, you can only run 2 dimms. There is a patch incoming for the SMT errors in April. What will happen after is an unknown. The overclocking potential of Ryzen is also limited. The Wraith cooler is excellent, but it is by no means a guarantee to 4 ghz. It really depends on the silicone and if you are willing to up the voltage. You may hit a wall at 3.8ghz overclocking it.
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    Cleffy said:
    You should definitely wait on Ryzen if you go that route. With the Core i5 7600 you know what you will be getting. Ryzen right now is like a game with a lot of potential. Delivering on it is a big IF. Right now to get maximum memory bandwidth, you can only run 2 dimms. There is a patch incoming for the SMT errors in April. What will happen after is an unknown. The overclocking potential of Ryzen is also limited. The Wraith cooler is excellent, but it is by no means a guarantee to 4 ghz. It really depends on the silicone and if you are willing to up the voltage. You may hit a wall at 3.8ghz overclocking it.
    Even stock the 1700, is close enough to a i5 7600 at 4k, so since they are the same price, the ryzen is def the better deal, with 4 more cores and 8 more hyper threading. Unless of course all those people are lying, which i doubt. 



    Theres one the ryzen gets better than a 7700k which is better tan a 7600k.

    Heres another



    Here is another one



    Heres another, but its a i6700k which is almost the same as a 7700k



    I guess all those people must be lying. So your saying the ryzen has a chance to get better? Well if thats true than the ryzen wins already. If its only gets better than i dono. 

    Heres one that in civs the i7 7700k wins to a 1700x by about 10fps



    Out of all that, with the chance to get a 1800x for 300, which is on par or better than a i7 7700 for 4k, or if i get unlucky and only get 3.8, its close enough to not matter. 

    I will still be in better shape with the amd, because some times i get crazy and run 2 eves and 1 stellaris. Which i owned a i5 6600k, and i had it oved to 4.5, and it wasnt enough to play those 3 games. I upgraded to a 6800k, which played them all fine, but I tried to oc it to 4.5 and blew it up. 
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    Here is yet another.
    http://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-performance-of-ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-with-geforce-gtx-1080-ti/

    So he must be lying 2. In all 4k tests the results equal a ryzen and i7 are about equal. Which I am not sure who buys a 1080ti to play 1920 by 1080....

  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    edited March 2017
    Here is another one.
    http://www.eteknix.com/nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-cpu-showdown-i7-7700k-vs-ryzen-r7-1800x-vs-i7-5820k/3/

    Again the ryzen is the same or better at 4k. Which I am not really sure why any one cares about 1080 at this price range. It's like the people who have a i3570k and a 970 comparing the results of 800by600.

    Here is a quote from it about duse x 4k.By the time we reached 4K, the 1800X was a full 10FPS in the lead.

    That happens to be huge cause we are talking 28fps on the 7700k and 38 with the ryzen.

    Here's doom. For those people who were saying min fps matters the most.
    Just to keep us on our toes, it looks like the i7-5820K has the lead for 4K here, but interestingly the 1800X matched its performance and even maintained a higher minimum frame rate by 7FPS.

    I should really change this thread to hahah intel hype almost got me. Thank fully that storm saved me from buying the 7600k
    The Ryzen 1800X helped maintain the highest minimum frame rates we’ve ever seen, and that means a more consistent, smoother and overall better gameplay experience.

  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,412
    edited March 2017
    Ohh you had that use case from a few months ago. Glad the 6800k worked until you burned it. I think in that thread it was mentioned one of the games is single-threaded CPU bound, but 4 ghz should be enough. In your use case the R7s make a lot of sense.
    I would still wait at least a month for the Bios and patches. Most of those tests are using beta bios and custom fixes to get around the early problems of the platform.

    I can see why the R7 might be able to perform better in some games due to its larger L2 cache which helps with cache thrashing, but it's an abnormal case of bad coding.
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    edited March 2017
    Cleffy said:
    Ohh you had that use case from a few months ago. Glad the 6800k worked until you burned it. I think in that thread it was mentioned one of the games is single-threaded CPU bound, but 4 ghz should be enough. In your use case the R7s make a lot of sense.
    I would still wait at least a month for the Bios and patches. Most of those tests are using beta bios and custom fixes to get around the early problems of the platform.

    I can see why the R7 might be able to perform better in some games due to its larger L2 cache which helps with cache thrashing, but it's an abnormal case of bad coding.
    Its to late for me ;) Newegg already shipped it. Id personally like to see a 1080ti sli, 1800x vs 7700k. Havent found that yet. 
  • SeelinnikoiSeelinnikoi Member RarePosts: 1,360
    Insider INFO:

    Around September AMD will cut the prices of their CPUs about 20% so people do not have to think twice in getting a relatively equivalent power in processor, against Intel.
    So those R7 and R5 will all be much more affordable than they already are (for the power they provide) and it will also continue their aggressive pricing upon the launch of their integrated graphics APU line.

    You have heard it here first. :)
    If you are a Star Wars fan, why not try the Star Wars The Old Republic?
    New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    edited March 2017
    Insider INFO:

    Around September AMD will cut the prices of their CPUs about 20% so people do not have to think twice in getting a relatively equivalent power in processor, against Intel.
    So those R7 and R5 will all be much more affordable than they already are (for the power they provide) and it will also continue their aggressive pricing upon the launch of their integrated graphics APU line.

    You have heard it here first. :)
    It already is priced fine. You say relatively equivalent, a 1700 overclocked to 3.7 which any one could do on a stock. It gets equal to a 6900k overclocked. I am unsure why I or any one compares these cpus to a 7700 or 7600. If you compare a 7700k or 7600 to a 6950k or a 6900k for the purpose of gaming the 7700 and 7600 win. I seriously doubt they will drop their price 20 percent, unless intel trys to undercut them, which i doubt. 

    The 4 core amd, will overclock to 4.5-4.9 ghz, and get the same fps as the 7700k and 7600. The 6800 6900 cannot overclock past 4 ghz unless you get mad lucky, and to try risks blowing it up. The amd at 4 ghz, which is easily achieved with a better cooler, is faster than a 6800 or 6900k at 4ghz. 

    I just got 1620 on r15 cinebench with my ram at 2400, and I am rivaling a 6900k. https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_6950x_6900k_6850k_cpu_review/9

    The 6900k which costs over a grand got 1578. Its stock clock is 3.7. So a 1700 at 3.7 and a 6900k at 3.7 the 1700 wins, and costs 329 vs 1100. 

    The same is gonna be true with the 7700k. When the 4 core 8 thread 1500 comes out for 150 bucks.

    Amd already won if you ask me. The only people who think otherwise are misinformed like I was at the start of this post. 

    So why would amd lower there already low price of 70 percent lower than intel in some cases, and 50 percent lower in others. I mean intel hasent even lowered their garbage 6900k, which is not worth 1100, it is worth 329. 

    I honestly think the confusion comes from, not to many people have owned a 6800k, or 6900k, and dont seem to grasp that at 8 cores, you lower single core performance. Also since the 1700 is the same price as the 7700k people think it was made to compare with that cpu. The one that is comparable to the 7700k is, The four-core, eight-thread variants of the Ryzen 5 series are the 1500X, priced at $189, and 1400, priced at $169. The 1500X will be released with a base clock speed of 3.5 GHz and a 3.7 GHz boost clock. The 1400X, on the other hand, will arrive with a 3.2 GHz base clock speed and a 3.4 GHz boost speed.

    The one that will be comparable to the i5 is even cheaper, which is the r3, which is only gonna be like 89 dollars lol, but will get the same performance of a i5 7600k.

    The only thing that is a guess, is if the 4 core ones can overclock to 4.5, which i would assume since a 6800 cant go over 4, and a 6600k can go to 4.5, it should be true to the amd, I dont understand it, but it has to be some law of physics i would assume. 
  • JeroKaneJeroKane Member EpicPosts: 7,015
    filmoret said:
    Just going by your own numbers its the fact that AMD has 16threads that makes it remotely competitive.  The overall power of the 1800x is 1960x16  meanwhile the overrall rating of the 6800k is 2176x12.   So its a little faster but only because it has 16 threads and only when the software can take advantage of it.

    So. Bottomline. Ryzen might be remotely interesting for Developers and People running Professional programs that can actually make use of all those threads.


    For regular consumers and gamers like us. Stick to Intel CPU's.
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621
    edited March 2017
    JeroKane said:
    filmoret said:
    Just going by your own numbers its the fact that AMD has 16threads that makes it remotely competitive.  The overall power of the 1800x is 1960x16  meanwhile the overrall rating of the 6800k is 2176x12.   So its a little faster but only because it has 16 threads and only when the software can take advantage of it.

    So. Bottomline. Ryzen might be remotely interesting for Developers and People running Professional programs that can actually make use of all those threads.


    For regular consumers and gamers like us. Stick to Intel CPU's.
    No, in a like 20 days, the gaming version of amd will be out, and that will equal the i7 and i5 for half the price. Atm yeah prolly, but nah if your choice in my advice, is to buy a 7700k, or a 1700, i would take the 1700. You get over double the multicore power of a 7700k, its like 40 dollars cheaper. The only person who gets something out of a 7700k, is some one who has a 1080 144hz monitor, and is physically capable of seeing the difference between 115fps and 130 fps.  Because at 4k, there is no difference between a 8350k, a 1700, or a 7700k 5ghz. 

    When the 4 cores come out I predict there will be no difference between a r5 oced to 4.5 and a 7700k oc to 4.5. Maybe like 3-5 fps. 
Sign In or Register to comment.