Support NeoGAF

[prag16]

Come on. Just stop.

Yes, I know 1080p is the primary resolution. But not paired with a 1080 or a Titan X. Or do you believe otherwise?

The vast majority own cards like 970s, 390s, 1060, 1070 etc (with a 1080p) monitor which would have the same effect of greatly reducing (in fact, wiping out altogether in most cases) any performance gap between a Ryzen and a 7700K.

In the end you're still arguing for testing a CPU in mostly GPU-bound scenarios to gauge its performance. You can't see how limited that approach is, and how it can be seen as deceiving?

Also, I'm not quite following why 1600/1600X becomes a much more interesting Kaby Lake competitor... those will be even slower than the ones that just launched. Maybe if they're like $150? (No clue if there have been any numbers bandied about for pricing.)

 

[Tomasoares]

1600X + 1500X are just bad yield 1800X chips with cores disabled. They dont run faster clocks than an 1800X either, so you'll save $ but you shouldnt expected greater performance.

If AMD can improve performance via bios, driver, OS updates, that would be great for Ryzen and gaming but if not, expect the same levels of performance or less from their R5 chips vs kaby lake

So Ryzen is a failure for games?

 

[opticalmace]

So Ryzen is a failure for games?

To jump in, if the system is mainly for gaming and general usage I would get a 7700k myself. If you're doing encoding or some other highly threaded task then Ryzen makes a lot of sense.

My gaming box is a 6700k, and I'm building a 1700 box for work.

 

[The Horror the horror]

AMD plummeted 5% this morning.

It's going to drop below $13 by the end of the day, I'm guessing.

 

[PnCIa]

So, overall great for productivity, okay for gaming. I dont get the negativity at all, sure if you thought they would beat intel or be even with them right away in every possible scenario (will never happen since they have a different architecture) then you can be disappointed.
This is a great poduct for a great price. Period.

So Ryzen is a failure for games?

Not at all. Its a great CPU for a variety of tasks, including gaming. If your sole focus is gaming though, look somewhere else, or wait a few month until we know if things change with software updates.

 

[Beerman462]

In the end you're still arguing for testing a CPU in mostly GPU-bound scenarios to gauge its performance. You can't see how limited that approach is, and how it can be seen as deceiving?

Also, I'm not quite following why 1600/1600X becomes a much more interesting Kaby Lake competitor... those will be even slower than the ones that just launched. Maybe if they're like $150? (No clue if there have been any numbers bandied about for pricing.)

There is no proof that they will be slower. Most games don't make use of more than 4 cores so as long as they can clock as high as 1800/1700X than the 1600/1500X should be very comparable in games.

So Ryzen is a failure for games?

No, if 1600X is a $200-$230 6 core and 1500X is a $130-150 4 core they will be very interesting for gaming.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

So Ryzen is a failure for games?

No. It's a decent performer in games. It's much improved over their previous architecture, but it's too early to call it a failure. They still have time to iron out the kinks that come with a new architecture launch.

Have to give it time to improve bios and driver/OS support.

But if you're looking to buy a Ryzen strictly for gaming, I wouldn't recommend anything other than the lowest priced 1700 since it will OC to 3.8 to 4 ghz. I do think we will see improved performance after the kinks are ironed out but i dont it will outperform a 7700k afterwards, that's for today's games. I think it will be good for games down the road.

Ryzen is a solid good offering from AMD, but it's generation 1 for them vs intel's 7th generation.

 

[kotodama]

Hmm, reading through the last couple pages, I think I've learned a little bit about GPU bound issues in testing, but I still don't see the practical issue with Joker's testing from a real world use perspective. It seems that the pure CPU bound tests for gaming are edge cases or worst case scenarios as General Lee put it, that need to be artificially generated with perhaps the exception of Paragon's Deus Ex: Mankind Divided test. Is there any good CPU bound gaming benchmark suite at the moment?

That being said, it seems on par with a 7700K in GPU bound scenarios, which would be most scenarios, no?

 

[~Cross~]

So Ryzen is a failure for games?

Depends on what you mean by failure. I dont do video encoding, or heavy threaded compiling or anything like that. I use my computer mostly for games, so these particular chips ARE failures, because they are more expensive than the competition while providing generally worse experience.

The Ryzen 5 chips might be better price/performance for games, but these aren't.

 

[PdotMichael]

Hmm, reading through the last couple pages, I think I've learned a little bit about GPU bound issues in testing, but I still don't see the practical issue with Joker's testing from a real world use perspective. It seems that the pure CPU bound tests for gaming are edge cases or worst case scenarios as General Lee put it, that need to be artificially generated with perhaps the exception of Paragon's Deus Ex: Mankind Divided test. Is there any good CPU bound gaming benchmark suite at the moment?

That being said, it seems on par with a 7700K in GPU bound scenarios, which would be most scenarios, no?

We all play our games in 720p, otherwise one could say all the discussions here are a waste of lifetime.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

Hmm, reading through the last couple pages, I think I've learned a little bit about GPU bound issues in testing, but I still don't see the practical issue with Joker's testing from a real world use perspective. It seems that the pure CPU bound tests for gaming are edge cases or worst case scenarios as General Lee put it, that need to be artificially generated with perhaps the exception of Paragon's Deus Ex: Mankind Divided test. Is there any good CPU bound gaming benchmark suite at the moment?

That being said, it seems on par with a 7700K in GPU bound scenarios, which would be most scenarios, no?

it's on par in gpu bound scenarios because the gpu cant keep up. Get a better gpu and you should see better performance from the better performing processor.

There's not a lot of cpu bound gaming tests to show.

But it's better to think along the lines of how you plan on upgrading down the road when new generations of gpus release since the stronger processor should last longer since the gpu bottleneck has been reduced.

Ryzen is tough though because it's high core count could be great for the future unless intel starts competing with core counts at the same price levels.

 

[Engell]

a little update from Gamers Nexus

Explaining Ryzen Review Differences (Again)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBf0lwikXyU

 

[xkramz]

It's priced accordingly it's a good bargain regardless of the performance.

Amd did a good job with ryzen. Mind you I'm a Intel fanboy. Never had a amd anything.

 

[ezodagrom]

Hmm, reading through the last couple pages, I think I've learned a little bit about GPU bound issues in testing, but I still don't see the practical issue with Joker's testing from a real world use perspective. It seems that the pure CPU bound tests for gaming are edge cases or worst case scenarios as General Lee put it, that need to be artificially generated with perhaps the exception of Paragon's Deus Ex: Mankind Divided test. Is there any good CPU bound gaming benchmark suite at the moment?

That being said, it seems on par with a 7700K in GPU bound scenarios, which would be most scenarios, no?

The purpose of the CPU reviews are to see how the CPUs compare to each other, and in a GPU bound scenario, they're not testing the CPU at all, all that we're seeing is the GPU being maxed out.

People tend to upgrade GPUs more often that CPUs, a GPU bound scenario today may not be so in the near future.
After a considerable GPU upgrade, a weaker CPU will be alot more likely to become a limiting factor in typical gaming usage than a better CPU, so it's good to know the differences between them in tests where the GPU isn't limiting performance (low resolution tests).

 

[IC5]

If Intel is smart, coffee lake wont require new motherboards, i5 will be priced better. Maybe they will do something weird with an i3, like unlock it and give it a bunch of cache. And that upcoming skylake branch with L4 cache (ESRAM) had better be priced to sell.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

We know Intel intends to counter with 4-cores in August, but my question would be why not new 6 and 8 cores?

HEDT progress depends on Intel's server line. That advances at it's own rate separately from their mainstream line.

As one of the few who actually is on HEDT, I think Ryzen is amazing value for the money. If literally all you do is play games, then I guess you don't need more than 4 cores anyways. I called this months ago, AMD is astoundingly stupid to price it this low and try to compete with mainstream CPUs where single-thread performance is king. They are cutting their own profit margins for no good reason when cash flow is the one thing they need most desperately. Had they priced it like HEDT, people would have looked at it through the HEDT goggles and understood who this is for. But then again if there's one thing AMD is known for, it's being astoundingly stupid with marketing.

Vega will probably be shit. You heard it here first.

 

[grumble]

Hmm, reading through the last couple pages, I think I've learned a little bit about GPU bound issues in testing, but I still don't see the practical issue with Joker's testing from a real world use perspective. It seems that the pure CPU bound tests for gaming are edge cases or worst case scenarios as General Lee put it, that need to be artificially generated with perhaps the exception of Paragon's Deus Ex: Mankind Divided test. Is there any good CPU bound gaming benchmark suite at the moment?

That being said, it seems on par with a 7700K in GPU bound scenarios, which would be most scenarios, no?

Yeah, the difference is kind of academic for the vast majority of games. That being said, if your computer is almost totally for games, why get it over competition that's cheaper and better? If you use it for productivity, different story and AMD should definitely be on your radar.

 

[tuxfool]

Yeah, the difference is kind of academic for the vast majority of games. That being said, if your computer is almost totally for games, why get it over competition that's cheaper and better? If you use it for productivity, different story and AMD should definitely be on your radar.

One thing to bear in mind is that the console paradigms favor lots of (weaker) cores. I don't see that paradigm changing in the future. Now, it doesn't matter so much today because PC CPUs completely stomp on what is available on consoles but the next cycle is liable to have stronger CPUs.

However, if people plan for their CPU purchases to last a long time having many cores is certainly something worth considering. Some people don't, and that is fine too.

 

[ezodagrom]

However, if people plan for their CPU purchases to last a long time having many cores is certainly something worth considering. Some people don't, and that is fine too.

But when the Ryzen CPUs lose to the 7700K in one of the games that use multiple cores the best (Watch Dogs 2), the 7700K still sounds like the more future proof option for gaming.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Depends on what you mean by failure. I dont do video encoding, or heavy threaded compiling or anything like that. I use my computer mostly for games, so these particular chips ARE failures, because they are more expensive than the competition while providing generally worse experience.

The Ryzen 5 chips might be better price/performance for games, but these aren't.

That's not how you define a CPU as a 'failure' and is incredibly harsh. At their price they are great CPUs, let's not try and help Intel's cause for a total monopoly with this crap.

 

[napata]

But when the Ryzen CPUs lose to the 7700K in one of the games that use multiple cores the best (Watch Dogs 2), the 7700K still sounds like the more future proof option for gaming.

Yeah I've seen multiple well scaling games where the 7700k still beats the 1800x, which means there's something else holding it back.

 

[Yaari]

Not sure what to do here. I don't want to say I was banking on these Ryzen CPU's, but I kinda was I guess. I was delaying my PC build for their release and now I don't know what to do.

I do plan to game on 1440p and maybe even 4k later. But now seeing mention of the R5 line being better for gaming, and I am not really sure what to do. The weird support throughout different memory speeds also doesnt help.

Why would their R5 line be better for gaming and what to even expect from it in comparison to what Intel has out right now, or is that too difficult to tell? I'm kind of new to this.

 

[ezodagrom]

Not sure what to do here. I don't want to say I was banking on these Ryzen CPU's, but I kinda was I guess. I was delaying my PC build for their release and now I don't know what to do.

I do plan to game on 1440p and maybe even 4k later. But now seeing mention of the R5 line being better for gaming, and I am not really sure what to do. The weird support throughout different memory speeds also doesnt help.

Why would their R5 line be better for gaming and what to even expect from it in comparison to what Intel has out right now, or is that too difficult to tell? I'm kind of new to this.

I don't see how their R5 line could be better for gaming at all. Looks like the 1600X is gonna have the same clocks as the 1800X, so its gaming performance should be similar or worse.
The only thing going for it is that it'll be cheaper.

There's the optimizations that AMD says that'll happen through games patches, but, I want to see results before I believe that. As of now, the best mainstream option for gaming is the i7 7700K.

 

[ethomaz]

Not sure what to do here. I don't want to say I was banking on these Ryzen CPU's, but I kinda was I guess. I was delaying my PC build for their release and now I don't know what to do.

I do plan to game on 1440p and maybe even 4k later. But now seeing mention of the R5 line being better for gaming, and I am not really sure what to do. The weird support throughout different memory speeds also doesnt help.

Why would their R5 line be better for gaming and what to even expect from it in comparison to what Intel has out right now, or is that too difficult to tell? I'm kind of new to this.

Anybody saying R5 will be better for games is just jumping conclusion in a big way.

There is nothing that supports this "mention".

It will be cheaper but probably lower clocked and with lower performance in games.

 

[wildfire]

Just read Gamer's Nexus review and was not impressed by what was shown. AMD was definitely inflating numbers. They gave it a hard pass for gaming and I'd have to agree since Intels mid range CPUS are handily beating it.

I was really hoping they'd be able to light a fire under Intel's ass.

The gaming performance is disappointing but I'm still going to purchase it.

I have 3 productivity reasons I'm getting it but there is 1 reason I see it having better value for gaming.

When I was looking at minimum frame rates Ryzen was across the board lower than everything intel had from Haswell and above but when I looked at videos the frame pacing issues simply weren't as apparent as they were with Intel.

It's not until I came across the Joker review I've been able to figure out why. Because of the lower core count you'll hit 90%+ Cpu utilization more often. Even though Intel is drastically faster than AMD it gets bottlenecked more frequently and thus makes more stutters than a game running on Ryzen.

Since I prefer to game with ULMB on this doesn't help me most of the time but if I'm running Gsync I think this will hold more value and for gamers who don't have a variable refresh display this will be a big improvement in not getting annoyed while playing.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

I think it unwise if people think the gaming benchmarks are not going to improve, by quite a lot in some cases, because in some 1080p well-threaded game benches the perf is down 20% yet we're talking about a CPU here that's close to a 6950K in lots of CPU tests. It doesn't make sense.

It's gonna happen but how long it takes is anyone's guess. What I'm hoping is there is a one-fix solution that will work across the board instead of each dev having to optimize for Ryzen each release. It could come next week or in 6 months.

 

[Yaari]

I don't see how their R5 line could be better for gaming at all. Looks like the 1600X is gonna have the same clocks as the 1800X, so its gaming performance should be similar or worse.
The only thing going for it is that it'll be cheaper.

There's the optimizations that AMD says that'll happen through games patches, but, I want to see results before I believe that. As of now, the best mainstream option for gaming is the i7 7700K.

Yeah I suppose I should wait to see what can be done through patches. Hopefully that won't take too long. I'd like to just get an idea as to what is possible.

The thing with the memory speed support and all just makes me wonder if that's ever going to be fully supported, the 3200mhz DDR I already have I mean.

 

[~Cross~]

That's not how you define a CPU as a 'failure' and is incredibly harsh. At their price they are great CPUs, let's not try and help Intel's cause for a total monopoly with this crap.

I'm not the only one that thinks this. Here's the gamernexus editor quote at the end of his review:

"For gaming, it's a hard pass. We absolutely do not recommend the 1800X for gaming-focused users or builds, given i5-level performance at two times the price. An R7 1700 might make more sense, and we'll soon be testing that."

Again, from a gaming standpoint, the higher end chips are a failure.

e- R5s wont be magically better than the R7s for games. It makes absolutely no sense that they would. They might just be a better price/performance options than similar Intel chips. Still, the market for higher end PC gaming machines hasn't changed, and wont change any time soon. The middle tier might.

 

[Joohanh]

Not sure what to do here. I don't want to say I was banking on these Ryzen CPU's, but I kinda was I guess. I was delaying my PC build for their release and now I don't know what to do.

I do plan to game on 1440p and maybe even 4k later. But now seeing mention of the R5 line being better for gaming, and I am not really sure what to do. The weird support throughout different memory speeds also doesnt help.

Why would their R5 line be better for gaming and what to even expect from it in comparison to what Intel has out right now, or is that too difficult to tell? I'm kind of new to this.

I was faced with this decision as well when I placed my order for a new PC build yesterday. Hell, while I'm waiting for a couple of products to come into stock I could still change my order. And I've been thinking about it.

But there are some things that are hard to get over:
- the multithreaded performance is amazingly good with Ryzen
- while it's clear the 7700K performs better in games, the difference that I will experience will be nominal
- I want to support AMD because I want to support competition
- there's at least a good chance that the gaming performance will improve down the line, and if it doesn't, I'm OK with it

And while I really don't do anything like video processing with my PC, it is meant for everything that I daily do. It really could be either way (7700K or 1700), but fuck it, you gotta make a choice.

 

[Locuza]

https://www.3dcenter.org/news/amd-ryzen-launch-anwendungs-performance-auf-einen-blick

Kinda sad to see that Ryzen is such a mixed bag, at least it's not Bulldozer and really has its strengths.

 

[NeOak]

HEDT progress depends on Intel's server line. That advances at it's own rate separately from their mainstream line.

As one of the few who actually is on HEDT, I think Ryzen is amazing value for the money. If literally all you do is play games, then I guess you don't need more than 4 cores anyways. I called this months ago, AMD is astoundingly stupid to price it this low and try to compete with mainstream CPUs where single-thread performance is king. They are cutting their own profit margins for no good reason when cash flow is the one thing they need most desperately. Had they priced it like HEDT, people would have looked at it through the HEDT goggles and understood who this is for. But then again if there's one thing AMD is known for, it's being astoundingly stupid with marketing.

Vega will probably be shit. You heard it here first.

Tbf, anything higher than 7700k pricing is HEDT tier.

 

[Memorabilia]

I was faced with this decision as well when I placed my order for a new PC build yesterday. Hell, while I'm waiting for a couple of products to come into stock I could still change my order. And I've been thinking about it.

But there are some things that are hard to get over:
- the multithreaded performance is amazingly good with Ryzen
- while it's clear the 7700K performs better in games, the difference that I will experience will be nominal
- I want to support AMD because I want to support competition
- there's at least a good chance that the gaming performance will improve down the line, and if it doesn't, I'm OK with it

And while I really don't do anything like video processing with my PC, it is meant for everything that I daily do. It really could be either way (7700K or 1700), but fuck it, you gotta make a choice.

This is a perfect discussion within the thread discussion to demonstrate what some of the less cynical people in here have been saying: Prior to Ryzen, AMD wasn't even IN the discussion. Now, people are debating whether to buy Ryzen, weighing pros and cons. Now AMD is in the debate. That by itself is huge, even if Ryzen hasn't so far lived up to (arguably unrealistic) hyped expectations in some ways. Id also bet good money we'll see some solid performance gains from bug fixes/updates. Regardless, this is a major accomplishment for AMD just to be relevant again.

 

[opticalmace]

Not sure what to do here. I don't want to say I was banking on these Ryzen CPU's, but I kinda was I guess. I was delaying my PC build for their release and now I don't know what to do.

I do plan to game on 1440p and maybe even 4k later. But now seeing mention of the R5 line being better for gaming, and I am not really sure what to do. The weird support throughout different memory speeds also doesnt help.

Why would their R5 line be better for gaming and what to even expect from it in comparison to what Intel has out right now, or is that too difficult to tell? I'm kind of new to this.

What's your budget? If it's mainly for gaming I would go get a 7700k.

 

[psn]

But when the Ryzen CPUs lose to the 7700K in one of the games that use multiple cores the best (Watch Dogs 2), the 7700K still sounds like the more future proof option for gaming.

So where exactly did that happen?

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...iagramm-watch-dogs-2-frametimes-in-percentile

Keep it mind that every game has been tweaked for Intel, but not for the new ryzen architecture yet.

 

[Sectorseven]

Has anyone done emulator tests yet?

 

[pooptest]

I was faced with this decision as well when I placed my order for a new PC build yesterday. Hell, while I'm waiting for a couple of products to come into stock I could still change my order. And I've been thinking about it.

But there are some things that are hard to get over:
- the multithreaded performance is amazingly good with Ryzen
- while it's clear the 7700K performs better in games, the difference that I will experience will be nominal
- I want to support AMD because I want to support competition
- there's at least a good chance that the gaming performance will improve down the line, and if it doesn't, I'm OK with it

And while I really don't do anything like video processing with my PC, it is meant for everything that I daily do. It really could be either way (7700K or 1700), but fuck it, you gotta make a choice.

Yeah, I'm not getting phased by day 1 benchmarks like it seems the majority in this thread are. Not saying it's a bad thing, however.

Anyway, since Amazon botched release date of my Asus Prime X370-Pro... How's everyone's opinion of the Gigabyte 5? Better option? I still have a few days to decide, I suppose.

 

[ezodagrom]

So where exactly did that happen?

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...iagramm-watch-dogs-2-frametimes-in-percentile

Keep it mind that every game has been tweaked for Intel, but not for the new ryzen architecture yet.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7

 

[TheGreyHulk]

So where exactly did that happen?

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...iagramm-watch-dogs-2-frametimes-in-percentile

Keep it mind that every game has been tweaked for Intel, but not for the new ryzen architecture yet.

112 vs 84 fps in favor of the 7700k

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7

Not sure the test methodology of your link, but i trust gamersnexus a lot. They're not intel biased or anything like that.


Games were developed with intel in mind on PC, and AMD is working with devs to develop for Ryzen too but this wont do anything for games already developed. This is for down the road, now for what's available now.


Ryzen is now slouch, but 7700k is the go to for gamers right now.

 

[Delusibeta]

Bottom line is that Ryzen 7 makes Intel's X99 chipset moot. If your computer's use case requires lots of threads, Ryzen 7s do lots of threads really well.

For gaming, however, Ryzen 7 lags noticeably behind the mainstream Intel chips, and there is no real reason reason for anyone who intends to primarily game on their PC to get a Ryzen 7 CPU over the cheaper Intel i5 7600k or a similarly priced i7 7700k.

However, Ryzen 5 and especially Ryzen 3 may change the conversation. I'm fairly sure most people would accept a Ryzen CPU that has 80% of the performance of a 7700k if it was half the price.

 

[kotodama]

Yeah, I'm not getting phased by day 1 benchmarks like it seems the majority in this thread are. Not saying it's a bad thing, however.

Anyway, since Amazon botched release date of my Asus Prime X370-Pro... How's everyone's opinion of the Gigabyte 5? Better option? I still have a few days to decide, I suppose.

Seems the Gigabyte Aorus(?) board is the one to get at the moment. However it seems we need a motherboard review roundup, first.

 

[dr_rus]

Bottom line is that Ryzen 7 makes Intel's X99 chipset moot. If your computer's use case requires lots of threads, Ryzen 7s do lots of threads really well.

For gaming, however, Ryzen 7 lags noticeably behind the mainstream Intel chips, and there is no real reason reason for anyone who intends to primarily game on their PC to get a Ryzen 7 CPU over the cheaper Intel i5 7600k or a similarly priced i7 7700k.

However, Ryzen 5 and especially Ryzen 3 may change the conversation. I'm fairly sure most people would accept a Ryzen CPU that has 80% of the performance of a 7700k if it was half the price.

Ryzen 5 sure, Ryzen 3 somewhat doubtful as this is a quad core with less gaming performance than Skylake which isn't something I would buy for anything really in 2017. Ryzen 3 will do good in Raven Ridge in notebooks probably.

 

[pooptest]

Seems the Gigabyte Aorus(?) board is the one to get at the moment. However it seems we need a motherboard review roundup, first.

I can't seem to find the difference between 5 and 7. Aesthetics, I guess?

However, it is $35 more than the Asus board. And none of the X370 Gigabyte's are on Amazonm but the B350 is... Strange.

 

[kamspy]

Bottom line is that Ryzen 7 makes Intel's X99 chipset moot. If your computer's use case requires lots of threads, Ryzen 7s do lots of threads really well.

For gaming, however, Ryzen 7 lags noticeably behind the mainstream Intel chips, and there is no real reason reason for anyone who intends to primarily game on their PC to get a Ryzen 7 CPU over the cheaper Intel i5 7600k or a similarly priced i7 7700k.

However, Ryzen 5 and especially Ryzen 3 may change the conversation. I'm fairly sure most people would accept a Ryzen CPU that has 80% of the performance of a 7700k if it was half the price.

If that 20% was even across the board, sure. Right now it seems like AMD video cards where you have to wonder if the game coming out this week has inexplicably bad performance. That's what gets me.

 

[kotodama]

So where exactly did that happen?

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...iagramm-watch-dogs-2-frametimes-in-percentile

Keep it mind that every game has been tweaked for Intel, but not for the new ryzen architecture yet.

I wonder what was computerbase.de setup vs GamerNexus... my german is crap to nonexistent and GamerNexus is blocked at work.

 

[SRG01]

AMD plummeted 5% this morning.

It's going to drop below $13 by the end of the day, I'm guessing.

It's not the first time AMD has dropped like a rock. The charts show considerable support at 13, and we should be okay unless we break down past 12.

 

[Steel]

I wonder what was computerbase.de setup vs GamerNexus... my german is crap to nonexistent and GamerNexus is blocked at work.

Dunno. Gamersnexus appears to be high settings, so perhaps computerbase is maxed out? That would explain why the 720p performance for both the 1800x and the 7700k is worse than the 1080p performance in the gamersnexus bench.

 

[Marmelade]

Joker made another vid @720p low this time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDjx-tW_WQ

 

[Beerman462]

Bottom line is that Ryzen 7 makes Intel's X99 chipset moot. If your computer's use case requires lots of threads, Ryzen 7s do lots of threads really well.

For gaming, however, Ryzen 7 lags noticeably behind the mainstream Intel chips, and there is no real reason reason for anyone who intends to primarily game on their PC to get a Ryzen 7 CPU over the cheaper Intel i5 7600k or a similarly priced i7 7700k.

However, Ryzen 5 and especially Ryzen 3 may change the conversation. I'm fairly sure most people would accept a Ryzen CPU that has 80% of the performance of a 7700k if it was half the price.

Thing is Intel has the 6700K that does just that, although it's 65% the price. If AMD beats that price with a 6 core it would disruptive, absent any moves by Intel.

If that 20% was even across the board, sure. Right now it seems like AMD video cards where you have to wonder if the game coming out this week has inexplicably bad performance. That's what gets me.

That door swings both ways. Some games favor AMD and some favor NVIDIA. That's optimization/driver stuff. I don't think CPUs will have this issue.

 

[ethomaz]

Joker made another vid @720p low this time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDjx-tW_WQ

Why DX11 on Ryzen and DX12 on 7700k for Tomb Raider???

But yeah... 7700k is a better CPU for games by a good margin.

 

[kotodama]

Dunno. Gamersnexus appears to be high settings, so perhaps computerbase is maxed out? That would explain why the 720p performance for both the 1800x and the 7700k is worse than the 1080p performance in the gamersnexus bench.

Any idea what boards, ram, etc they were using?

Joker made another vid @720p low this time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDjx-tW_WQ

Hmm, 7700K pulls ahead it seems, by 15-20 fps on average, with Sniper Elite showing something like 250 fps in favor of Intel at one instance, but that was like 250fps vs 500fps.. kind of ridiculous. The regular 1700 looks quite good still, no?