Support NeoGAF

[ethomaz]

This is not true. It delivers more, but not in pure FPS. Look at minimum frametimes as well as watching netflix while gaming. Or streaming. It delivers more outside the bounds of the review tests. You're not painting a true picture with your statement. How many places tested ten open tabs in chrome on Neogaf while running their benchmarks? I play that way, nobody tested it for me.

Why don't most sites test one of the most acclaimed graphically modern games of 2016? Is there a reason? Hell, ID Software used to be THE software to benchmark with. And all the reviews I read showed Doom performing wonderfully on Ryzen compared to a 7700K.

"Actually Ryzen is not a good option for gamers because it delivery less costing more than Intel options." Consoles my friend, you are correct when talking about consoles. If all you do is game, the PC doesn't have a hand in the game.

Hummmm... you have no ideia how big gaming is in PC... even bigger than consoles. The best graphics and frame rate are on PC and core gamers will always follow the best of the market for your money... it is clear Intel right now.

Your exemple about TABs in Chrome I'm pretty sure it won't affect in any way a benchmark between 7700K and 1700X.

The real picture it that and that is not only me.

I will post again the conclusion of the GamingNexus's review:

The AMD R7 1700 is priced in a way that makes it worthy of consideration at the cost, but with some of the same caveats as the R7 1800X. In the case of the R7 1700, we see mixed workload use cases shine better at the $330 price point, where the CPU deftly outperforms the 7700K in Premiere and Blender rendering tasks when CPU accelerated. If you're pushing renders to the CPU and doing some gaming, it's not a bad buy – it just depends on how much production you do versus how much gaming, or how much you care about hitting high refresh rates in games. For folks favoring high refresh rate (e.g. 120-144Hz), the 7700K is the best option – overclocking recommended. Hands down. If you're only gaming, but don't necessarily care about high refresh, we'd still point you toward a more cost effective i5 (or even i7, regardless of -K tag). For a mix of gaming + video editing or animation, the 1700 is actually defensible where the 1800X's price disallowed the same defense. Again, we're considering our core audience, here. If you're not part of that, perhaps consider other reviews.

I agree and that is the situation of AMD 1700/1800 in the gaming market.

 

[franklyshankly]

Consoles my friend, you are correct when talking about consoles. If all you do is game, the PC doesn't have a hand in the game.

If I want the best possible performance for games, I am looking at PC obviously. Then, it is a matter of getting the best possible performance for the lowest price. At this point, that is Intel, clearly.

I don't think you need to tell people to stick to 30 fps console games just because they don't want to spend extra money on AMD cpus with good performance in tasks they don't care about.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Not that my opinion matters at all, but my PC is connected to my TV, and I literally only ever turn it on to play a game. I don't stream, edit videos, code software or anything of the sort. General internet tasks are usually just done on my phone. Believe it or not, we do exist.

What I was actually saying has just flown right over your head and parted your hair in the middle as it did. Yes I do believe that there are people that just game on their PC and nothing else and I'm willing to bet you'd need more than two-hands to count them.

The percentage of people that barely game on their PC, don't game at all, or game as well as do other wacky sh*t like rendering, must be significantly greater. So these CPUs are not the 'total failure' I've seen a few people label them as this past week.

 

[ethomaz]

If I want the best possible performance for games, I am looking at PC obviously. Then, it is a matter of getting the best possible performance for the lowest price. At this point, that is Intel, clearly.

I don't think you need to tell people to stick to 30 fps console games just because they don't want to spend extra money on AMD cpus with good performance in tasks they don't care about.

His last comment was one of the worst I read in this thread I have no ideia where he come from because he has some good points before that.

I do prefer to play in consoles but I know how wrong "if all you do is game, the PC doesn't have a hand in the game." lol

PC gamers are gamers like consoles... the difference is that PC gamer follow the best for your money you can have for gaming.

 

[Coldfriction]

If I want the best possible performance for games, I am looking at PC obviously. Then, it is a matter of getting the best possible performance for the lowest price. At this point, that is Intel, clearly.

I don't think you need to tell people to stick to 30 fps console games just because they don't want to spend extra money on AMD cpus with good performance in tasks they don't care about.

Compare what you're saying to what he said, "Actually Ryzen is not a good option for gamers because it delivery less costing more than Intel options."

His statement is value/$. Value per $ has nothing to do with getting the absolute best performance. Observe: "Actually intel is not a good option for gamers because it delivery less costing more than console options."

Doesn't that hold true?

His statement didn't come with qualifiers, it just tried to make it look like gamers shouldn't choose AMD.

I'm arguing against this narrow minded way of thinking.

 

[Durante]

The percentage of people that barely game on their PC, don't game at all, or game as well as do other wacky sh*t like rendering, must be significantly greater. So these CPUs are not the 'total failure' I've seen a few people label them as this past week.

Do you really believe that the number of people who need workstation-type CPU performance in their desktops is higher than the number of gamers?
(Because those who don't game and don't really need CPU performance don't really matter for this discussion)

Observe: "Actually intel is not a good option for gamers because it delivery less costing more than console options."

Doesn't that hold true?

No, because a PC with an Intel CPU delivers a lot more performance than a console.

I really don't see where you are going with this.

 

[ethomaz]

Compare what you're saying to what he said, "Actually Ryzen is not a good option for gamers because it delivery less costing more than Intel options."

His statement is value/$. Value per $ has nothing to do with getting the absolute best performance. Observer: "Actually intel is not a good option for gamers because it delivery less costing more than console options."

Doesn't that hold true?

His statement didn't come with qualifiers, it just tried to make it look like gamers shouldn't choose AMD.

Don't play dumb here.

You kewn it was the best for you money for gaming PC lol the discussion was about CPU for gaming PC.

It is clear Intel right now.

 

[franklyshankly]

Compare what you're saying to what he said, "Actually Ryzen is not a good option for gamers because it delivery less costing more than Intel options."

His statement is value/$. Value per $ has nothing to do with getting the absolute best performance. Observer: "Actually intel is not a good option for gamers because it delivery less costing more than console options."

Doesn't that hold true?

His statement didn't come with qualifiers, it just tried to make it look like gamers shouldn't choose AMD.

It seems pretty obvious English isn't his first language, so you might want to avoid over-parsing the language to such a minute level. I don't really think there's a wrong way to go here myself. AMD has provided good chips which hold their own and have great performance in non-gaming tasks. For gaming, Intel is still number 1 though, and for less cost than the 1800x or 1700x it beats. Different consumers will value different things and purchase accordingly, and that's fine.

 

[Nydus]

At this point im just overwhelmed by the discussion (here and elsewhere) and really struggled between a 7700k and a r1700. The tipping point for me was when i just ignored all the buzz and thought to myself in silence if I would be ok with a 4core (even if it is THE best in gaming) in my build for years to come...and im not. The 7700k is amazing but ill go with my gutfeeling that i would regret it. So 1700 it is and im just fine with it

 

[Coldfriction]

Don't play dumb here.

You know it was the best for you money for PC gaming lol

It is clear Intel right now.

My point is that it isn't clear Intel right now. This is the first time in like 8 years it hasn't been clear Intel. That's not an honest assessment, it's close enough that you can't say that to the anonymous public. Because of Ryzen, you have to look at each users needs now. The minute a gamer says, "I might want to stream a Let's Play someday," Intel falls flat on it's face. It is not clear.

 

[Durante]

The minute a gamer says, "I might want to stream a Let's Play someday," Intel falls flat on it's face.

Erm, that's a ridiculous assertion in the light of modern GPUs and hardware-accelerated video capture and encoding.

 

[ethomaz]

My point is that it isn't clear Intel right now. This is the first time in like 8 years it hasn't been clear Intel. That's not an honest assessment, it's close enough that you can't say that to the anonymous public. Because of Ryzen, you have to look at each users needs now. The minute a gamer says, "I might want to stream a Let's Play someday," Intel falls flat on it's face. It is not clear.

Ok.

Show me any AMD CPU that is cheaper and delivery equal or better performance for games Intel today? There is none.

That means clear.

"I might want to stream a Let's Play someday," is ridiculous for any modern CPU or GPU today like your open TABs in Chrome excuse... you will never see difference in CPU performance with these tasks while gaming.

And I won't enter in console discussion because you can build a better Intel or AMD gaming machine with $300... that will make it cheaper and delivering better performance than consoles.

 

[Coldfriction]

Erm, that's a ridiculous assertion in the light of modern GPUs and hardware-accelerated video capture and encoding.

Admittedly that is the same hyperbole that these guys are using. I apologize. But please don't stop from calling them out if you're calling me out. GPU compressed streaming is weak on quality where Ryzen is better. That much is honest.

 

[Coldfriction]

Ok.

Show me any AMD CPU that is cheaper and delivery equal or better performance for games Intel today? There is none.

That means clear.

"I might want to stream a Let's Play someday," is ridiculous for any modern CPU or GPU today like your open TABs in Chrome excuse... you will never see difference in CPU performance with these tasks while gaming.

And I won't enter in console discussion because you can build a better Intel gaming machine with $300... that will make it cheaper and delivering better performance than consoles.

I'm not an AMD salesman, I have no interest in selling you CPUs. I have an interest in honest discussion. If it's clear, why are we debating? If someone came to me and asked me to get them the best gaming machine for their money, I'd get them a used Haswell I-7 from my work with 16 GB of ram and an SSD for $100 and throw an RX480 in it for a grand total of $300. AMD nor Intel can sell me a new CPU that makes that deal look bad. My work replaces their Dells six months after they are out of warranty and sells them to employees for dirt cheap. I have no interest in getting a Ryzen myself except that I may want it for video editing if I get more involved in it.

Also, WTF are you guys doing an an AMD Ryzen thread? Just trolling? If you've made up your mind that Intel is the clear choice, leave this thread alone.

 

[ezodagrom]

You see. This is a bit better of a statement.

And yes, if you need a gaming system and need the best of the best, there is no question that the 7700K is the absolute best. And yes, it is cheaper than the 1700X and 1800X.

But lets not pretend that those who got a 1700, 1700X and an 1800X are getting poor gaming.

I try to sound as neutral as I can, but I guess due to my disappointment on Ryzen falling short even in a game that uses all threads, it's a bit hard to not sound pessimistic, haha...

Some of the issues though (scheduler issues at least), they're something that should have been ironed out, at least a bit, before launch, so the current first impressions when it comes to gaming are AMD's fault. This is probably a really dumb comparison, but it kinda feels like releasing a new graphics card without drivers ready for it.

 

[ethomaz]

I'm not an AMD salesman, I have no interest in selling you CPUs. I have an interest in honest discussion. If it's clear, why are we debating? If someone came to me and asked me to get them the best gaming machine for their money, I'd get them a used Haswell I-7 from my work with 16 GB of ram and an SSD for $100 and throw an RX480 in it for a grand total of $300. AMD nor Intel can sell me a new CPU that makes that deal look bad. My work replaces their Dells six months after they are out of warranty and sells them to employees for dirt cheap. I have no interest in getting a Ryzen myself except that I may want it for video editing if I get more involved in it.

Also, WTF are you guys doing an an AMD Ryzen thread? Just trolling? If you've made up your mind that Intel is the clear choice, leave this thread alone.

I should ask the same for you...

 

[Coldfriction]

I should ask the same for you...

I came across a perspective that was on the ground getting kicked and beaten without due cause and decided to intervene. I prefer to lurk on threads, not post in them.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/my-impressions-of-ryzen-r7-1800x.2500899/

The above is an example of an honest assessment and more of what should be happening in this thread. But the shills here scared anyone who actually got a Ryzen from posting. I'm primarily looking for real world perspective from people who bought one, not perspective from people trying to convince everyone else not to.

Making people feel stupid here for having bought a Ryzen is wrong. Period. Clear as crystal.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

It is good for games in the future that will utilize it. As it is right now no one even Microsoft has their software up to date to accommodate the new Architecture and take advantage of it.

As an all around performer for both gaming and production it's a steal.

Compared to the 6 and 8 core Intel options it's a good value, but compared to Kaby Lake it's not a steal.

The 1600X (6/12 at $259) and even the 1400X (4/8 at $199) are the CPUs directly competing against Kaby Lake in terms of bang for buck.

Which is why I am arguing that AMD needs to consider getting those CPUs out sooner rather later, because things can change VERY quickly if Intel decides to drop the price of the 7700K, by even $75.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Do you really believe that the number of people who need workstation-type CPU performance in their desktops is higher than the number of gamers?
(Because those who don't game and don't really need CPU performance don't really matter for this discussion)
.

I said people who 'barely game' or 'game as well as need workstation stuff' so yes, those that do a bit of gaming and do other stuff as well is a bazillion times higher than those that just game and absolutely nothing else. Because, I'm sure you know, opening a web browser will benefit from more cores and isn't a part of gaming....

So the choice is this:

1. Choose Intel's new/newest 4-core and gain zero noticeable gaming performance because you game with any card under a GTX 1080.

Or

2. Choose a 1700 and benefit everyday from it being significantly faster with general PC tasks.

It's absolutely clear which is the better choice because as I said, those two are the same price here in the UK.

 

[Steel]

This thing is dropping like a stone.

I'm out, fellas.

Good luck to the rest of you holding.

Hate to tell you this, but AMD's stock ended the day up.

Compared to the 6 and 8 core Intel options it's a good value, but compared to Kaby Lake it's not a steal.

The 1600X (6/12 at $259) and even the 1400X (4/8 at $199) are the CPUs directly competing against Kaby Lake in terms of bang for buck.

Which is why I am arguing that AMD needs to consider getting those CPUs out sooner rather later, because things can change VERY quickly if Intel decides to drop the price of the 7700K, by even $75.

I'd say they need to leave those in the oven till they fix the SMT and scheduler issues. Which will hopefully be fixed before the Q2 release date.

 

[ethomaz]

I came across a perspective that was on the ground getting kicked and beaten without due cause and decided to intervene. I prefer to lurk on threads, not post in them.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/my-impressions-of-ryzen-r7-1800x.2500899/

The above is an example of an honest assessment and more of what should be happening in this thread. But the shills here scared anyone who actually got a Ryzen from posting. I'm primarily looking for real world perspective from people who bought one, not perspective from people trying to convince everyone else not to.

Making people feel stupid here for having bought a Ryzen is wrong. Period. Clear as crystal.

Again nobody did that the bolded... nobody make others feel stupid for having bought a Ryzyn... since beginning you create issue that didn't exists. Your own link has the same opinion of most here... everybody will agree with him.

That didn't change the fact that Intel right now has the best and cheaper CPU for games... you are in a gaming forum talking about gaming performance and Ryzen underdelivered in this point.

You looks like come here just for defense control.

 

[ezodagrom]

Compared to the 6 and 8 core Intel options it's a good value, but compared to Kaby Lake it's not a steal.

The 1600X (6/12 at $259) and even the 1400X (4/8 at $199) are the CPUs directly competing against Kaby Lake in terms of bang for buck.

Which is why I am arguing that AMD needs to consider getting those CPUs out sooner rather later, because things can change VERY quickly if Intel decides to drop the price of the 7700K, by even $75.

I think rushing the 1600X would be a mistake, they should fix at least some of the issues affecting gaming so the 1600X could get better results in reviews. It's gonna be released for a more gaming oriented price after all.

So the choice is this:

1. Choose Intel's new/newest 4-core and gain zero noticeable gaming performance because you game with any card under a GTX 1080.

Or

2. Choose a 1700 and benefit everyday from it being significantly faster with general PC tasks.

Until new cards release, that user upgrades the card but the CPU ends up being a bottleneck (if the current situation doesn't change/AMD's patches end up not delivering the expected results).

 

[Coldfriction]

Again nobody did that the bolded... nobody make others feel stupid for having bought a Ryzyn... since beginning you create issue that didn't exists. Your own link has the same opinion of most here... everybody will agree with him.

That didn't change the fact that Intel right now has the best and cheaper CPU for games... you are in a gaming forum talking about gaming performance and Ryzen underdelivered in this point.

You looks like come here just for defense control.

You are correct. That statement was out of line. I believe I'd just finished reading a ton of negative stuff on another thread before posting here. My apologies. I am still wondering why we aren't getting more owners posting their setups and experiences on neogaf.

 

[ethomaz]

I said people who 'barely game' or 'game as well as need workstation stuff' so yes, those that do a bit of gaming and do other stuff as well is a bazillion times higher than those that just game and absolutely nothing else. Because, I'm sure you know, opening a web browser will benefit from more cores and isn't a part of gaming....

So the choice is this:

1. Choose Intel's new/newest 4-core and gain zero noticeable gaming performance because you game with any card under a GTX 1080.

Or

2. Choose a 1700 and benefit everyday from it being significantly faster with general PC tasks.

It's absolutely clear which is the better choice because as I said, those two are the same price here in the UK.

OK let's clear something here.

General PC tasks didn't gain performance from multi-core like you believe even more from 4 to 8 cores... general PC tasks rely a lot in single performance at the point you won't see difference opening tabs in browser having 4 or 8 cores... and it won't affect games at all.

So trying to fix a bit.

1. Choose a cheaper Intel's new/newest 4-core with better gaming performance and future GPU upgrade.

OR

2. Choose a expensive AMD 8-core with better heavy multi-core performance.

There are marketing for both of course but for games even with general PC tasks it is Intel right now... otherwise I strong recommend anybody that work or use video encoding app, 3D rendering app, etc to go with Ryzen even if you gaming some times.

 

[Coldfriction]

2. Choose a expensive AMD 8-core with better heavy multi-core performance.

There are marketing for both of course but for games it is Intel right now.

Can you tell me that this will be the case in three to five years? I don't buy hardware for software that was made for older hardware.

 

[Durante]

I said people who 'barely game' or 'game as well as need workstation stuff' so yes, those that do a bit of gaming and do other stuff as well is a bazillion times higher than those that just game and absolutely nothing else. Because, I'm sure you know, opening a web browser will benefit from more cores and isn't a part of gaming....

So the choice is this:

1. Choose Intel's new/newest 4-core and gain zero noticeable gaming performance because you game with any card under a GTX 1080.

Or

2. Choose a 1700 and benefit everyday from it being significantly faster with general PC tasks.

It's absolutely clear which is the better choice because as I said, those two are the same price here in the UK.

We've discussed the whole "zero noticeable gaming performance" thing before. I disagree, and I've presented 99% frametime results that validate this disagreement, but let's not go over that again.

Instead, let's talk about something else. You seem convinced that "general PC tasks" will be faster on a 1700 than a 7700k. I disagree. Specialist content-creation tasks that scale well will be faster, often significantly so. "General PC tasks" might very well be (sometimes significantly) faster on a 7700k, because they are often only lightly threaded. Consider, for example, the JetStream, Kraken and Octane benchmarks here. Note that these benchmarks closely relate to the performance of your web browser scenario (which I agree is a very common use case, perhaps the most common of all).

 

[Coldfriction]

We've discussed the whole "zero noticeable gaming performance" thing before. I disagree, and I've presented 99% frametime results that validate this disagreement, but let's not go over that again.

Instead, let's talk about something else. You seem convinced that "general PC tasks" will be faster on a 1700 than a 7700k. I disagree. Specialist content-creation tasks that scale well will be faster, often significantly so. "General PC tasks" might very well be (sometimes significantly) faster on a 7700k, because they are often only lightly threaded. Consider, for example, the JetStream, Kraken and Octane benchmarks here. Note that these benchmarks closely relate to the performance of your web browser scenario (which I agree is a very common use case, perhaps the most common of all).

For general mundane computing tasks, even say Microsoft Office, the people who need anything newer than the original Core 2 Duo are few and far between when compared to the general populace. Specialist tasks, of which gaming is one, are the primary reasons for buying a more expensive system at all, don't you agree?

 

[Durante]

For general mundane computing tasks, even say Microsoft Office, the people who need anything newer than the original Core 2 Duo are few and far between when compared to the general populace. Specialist tasks, of which gaming is one, are the primary reasons for buying a more expensive system at all, don't you agree?

I fully agree, that's actually what I said in the post that Coulomb_Barrier replied to.

My additional point on top of that is that, among these specialist tasks, gaming is actually very prominent.

 

[Coldfriction]

I fully agree, that's actually what I said in the post that Coulomb_Barrier replied to.

My additional point on top of that is that, among these specialist tasks, gaming is actually very prominent.

I guess my response and point was that there isn't anything to say about general computing tasks as there isn't a debate. There shouldn't be any discussion about whether Bulldozer or Kaby Lake is better there, it just doesn't matter.

 

[ethomaz]

Can you tell me that this will be the case in three to five years? I don't buy hardware for software that was made for older hardware.

Why do you think the gaming performance will change in the future? Do you think games will start to run better on AMD than Intel because?

I know people are expecting 1600X to be better for games because they believe there will be fix in hardware... something that I will wait to see because I have a hard time believing AMD will make 1600X better than 1700X in any type of application.

Right now if you are thinking in the best bang for your budget for games... it is Intel... that means it will hold for more time as platform for future GPU upgrades.]

Games rely a lot in the performance of the each core why the tasks needs synchronism so most tasks needs to wait others tasks... at the end faster core performance will finish the tasks first even if you have tasks across 8 or 16 cores.

And that won't change in the future because there is a limit of what you can paralelize in games... at the end a lot of cores will stay with tasks waiting others tasks ends making the most of cores be sub utilized... a faster IPC/Core could do the job faster decreasing the time of tasks in wait mode (if you look at a % utilization of each core when a gaming is running you will understand that).

We are in the search for more complex and parallelized algorithms (that add processing time to the code too) but not everything can be parallelized in a way that even today (and I don't think it will change) a 8Ghz CPU will do things faster than a 2-core 4Ghz CPU... the issue is clock can't be increased anymore with actual process so we choose increase CPU cores.

Better IPC/clock performance will always help single apps (even games being parallelized it is a single app that needs to schedule tasks to cores to wait each other).

 

[potatohead]

Yea general population and even most gaming people won't give a shit if a newer CPU is better for Word or Excel or PPT.

As long as it's serviceable enough to work efficiently, which most CPUs are far more than enough these days (and really the main difference would just be a SSD over a HDD), why would anyone care for that purpose.

I couldn't give a shit for example if a 1700 beats my laptop i7 at Word. Like... lol. That just isn't part of the decision making process. If you get 10 more frames in Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk nobody is going to give a shit and backtrack because your Word opens 0.1 seconds slower.

 

[Coldfriction]

Why do you think the gaming performance will change in the future? Do you think games will start to run better on AMD than Intel because?

I know people are expecting 1600X to be better for games because they believe there will be fix in hardware... something that I will wait to see because I have a hard time believing AMD will make 1600X better than 1700X in any type of application.

Right now if you are thinking in the best bang for your budget for games... it is Intel... that means it will hold for more time as platform for future GPU upgrades.]

Games rely a lot in the performance of the each core why the tasks needs synchronism so most tasks needs to wait others tasks... at the end faster core performance will finish the tasks first even if you have tasks across 8 or 16 cores.

And that won't change in the future because there is a limit of what you can paralelize in games... at the end a lot of cores will stay with tasks waiting others tasks ends making the most of cores be sub utilized... a faster IPC/Core could do the job faster decreasing the time of tasks in wait mode (if you look at a % utilization of each core when a gaming is running you will understand that).

We are in the search for more complex and parallelized algorithms (that add processing time to the code too) but not everything can be parallelized in a way that even today (and I don't think it will change) a 8Ghz CPU will do things faster than a 2-core 4Ghz CPU... the issue is clock can't be increased anymore with actual process so we choose increase CPU cores.

Better IPC/clock performance will always help single apps (even games being parallelized it is a single app that needs to schedule tasks to cores to wait each other).

I bought a Q6600 back in the day and used that computer until a few years ago. At the time I got the Q6600, the word of the day was that dual core was the way to go for gaming and that quad core was unnecessary overkill. That computer lasted me a LOT longer than I expected it to. Games did eventually use the cores and it held it's own for a very long time. It was never "the best", but it was never the worst either. Before that, when the first dual cores came out, the discussion was the same. Single core was the way to go for gaming. Those perspectives were short sighted.

If you look at future Intel, they are going to start selling hex core CPUs outside of the HEDT market. Do you think they are wrong for doing that? Why not just update the quad cores if that's all the market needs? If I ask you which is more futureproof (a term most people seem to hate/misunderstand, you're always only buying time when you purchase a computer), would you say a quad core Kaby Lake, or a octo core Ryzen?

I know which one I expect to run out of legs sooner.

 

[The Horror the horror]

Hate to tell you this, but AMD's stock ended the day up.

That's fine, I've moved my funds to an index. AMD is just too risky and erratic for me.

 

[kamspy]

How much professional video work is CPU bottlenecked? Am I mistaken in thinking that it was mostly done in CUDA these days?

 

[Steel]

Why do you think the gaming performance will change in the future? Do you think games will start to run better on AMD than Intel because?

I know people are expecting 1600X to be better for games because they believe there will be fix in hardware... something that I will wait to see because I have a hard time believing AMD will make 1600X better than 1700X in any type of application.

That's not what people are expecting. One of the problems that's been brought up repeatedly is that windows 10 does not support SMT properly(to the point that Ryzen performs worse with SMT on) while Windows 7 does(Ironically, I remember reading that windows 7 would not officially support Ryzen), and tests have shown that SMT gives Ryzen a 17%ish boost in windows 7. The other major problem is another software problem with how the windows scheduler handles Ryzen's threads, it's unclear how much of a difference that would make. Not to mention BIOS issues. These are software issues.

On the other hand the 1600x has 1800x clock speeds with less cores, so unless an application takes full advantage of 8 cores, the 1600x will outperform the 1700x(which itself, with the above problems, is about equal to a 7600k) without an overclock and be relatively inexpensive comparatively. Not to mention that the two extra cores will give an advantage with streaming and frametimes that the 7600k and 7700k will not have.

That's fine, I've moved my funds to an index. AMD is just too risky and erratic for me.

I get it, I have a very small percentage of my portfolio in AMD myself(well, had, the huge gains its made has made that swell up to quite a decent portion of my portfolio).

 

[ezodagrom]

I bought a Q6600 back in the day and used that computer until a few years ago. At the time I got the Q6600, the word of the day was that dual core was the way to go for gaming and that quad core was unnecessary overkill. That computer lasted me a LOT longer than I expected it to. Games did eventually use the cores and it held it's own for a very long time. It was never "the best", but it was never the worst either. Before that, when the first dual cores came out, the discussion was the same. Single core was the way to go for gaming. Those perspectives were short sighted.

If you look at future Intel, they are going to start selling hex core CPUs outside of the HEDT market. Do you think they are wrong for doing that? Why not just update the quad cores if that's all the market needs? If I ask you which is more futureproof (a term most people seem to hate/misunderstand, you're always only buying time when you purchase a computer), would you say a quad core Kaby Lake, or a octo core Ryzen?

I know which one I expect to run out of legs sooner.

At the moment though, Watch Dogs 2 counters that reasoning. This is a game that uses all cores/threads, not many outlets used that game for their review, but the few that did, from what I've seen so far, in most of them Ryzen 1800X did worse than the i7 7700K, only one of them where the 1800X had a bit better results (not a big enough difference for a game that uses all cores/threads the CPU has though, taking into consideration it's comparing a 4/8 CPU to a 8/16 one).

I know people are expecting 1600X to be better for games because they believe there will be fix in hardware... something that I will wait to see because I have a hard time believing AMD will make 1600X better than 1700X in any type of application.

As Steel said, people are hoping for fixes from the software side, especially when it comes to Windows. AMD also talks about patches for specific games, but I'm not keeping my hopes up.
Now it all depends if they can deliver those on time before the launch of the 1600X. If they can and if those fixes don't result in just minor improvements, the launch of the 1600X is an oportunity for AMD to fix the current first impressions when it comes to gaming performance (at least in multithreaded games).

 

[Coldfriction]

At the moment though, Watch Dogs 2 counters that reasoning. This is a game that uses all cores/threads, not many outlets used that game for their review, but the few that did, from what I've seen so far, in most of them Ryzen 1800X did worse than the i7 7700K, only one of them where the 1800X had a bit better results (not a big enough difference for a game that uses all cores/threads the CPU has though, taking into consideration it's comparing a 4/8 CPU to a 8/16 one).

So, a game already released programmed for already existing hardware represents the future? Same thing when quads and dual cores were first released. Software wasn't there. Nobody programs a game with the 6900 as it's target. Nobody really knows the future. People were claiming Bulldozer would get better with software, and it did, but not enough. Ryzen, however, is not Bulldozer.

 

[NeOak]

How much professional video work is CPU bottlenecked? Am I mistaken in thinking that it was mostly done in CUDA these days?

Only for previews

 

[spwolf]

Again nobody did that the bolded... nobody make others feel stupid for having bought a Ryzyn... since beginning you create issue that didn't exists. Your own link has the same opinion of most here... everybody will agree with him.

That didn't change the fact that Intel right now has the best and cheaper CPU for games... you are in a gaming forum talking about gaming performance and Ryzen underdelivered in this point.

You looks like come here just for defense control.

"right now" is such a silly term, since 1600x is launching in what 2-3 months max? Thats not a crazy amount of time, it will pass quickly.

Also, while we are at it, yes we could say that 7700k is the gaming cpu to have right now but also that ryzen is the workstation cpu to have right now and it would also be smart to tell everyone to wait for 4 and 6 core ryzens before spending up to 2x more money on 7700k & good mobo.

So yes, it is quite a good position for AMD to be in, finally after such a long time and it is not very good spot for Intel... Intel is not going to drop the prices of their cpu's significantly since they already have problems with profits being lower than what analysts expect.

In the end, we all win since now Intel will finally have to speed up their cpu development again. I cant wait to see what can AMD do in notebook space, which is where Intel rules.

 

[ethomaz]

I bought a Q6600 back in the day and used that computer until a few years ago. At the time I got the Q6600, the word of the day was that dual core was the way to go for gaming and that quad core was unnecessary overkill. That computer lasted me a LOT longer than I expected it to. Games did eventually use the cores and it held it's own for a very long time. It was never "the best", but it was never the worst either. Before that, when the first dual cores came out, the discussion was the same. Single core was the way to go for gaming. Those perspectives were short sighted.

If you look at future Intel, they are going to start selling hex core CPUs outside of the HEDT market. Do you think they are wrong for doing that? Why not just update the quad cores if that's all the market needs? If I ask you which is more futureproof (a term most people seem to hate/misunderstand, you're always only buying time when you purchase a computer), would you say a quad core Kaby Lake, or a octo core Ryzen?

I know which one I expect to run out of legs sooner.

That is happening because IPC/clock barely improve today due process... so increase more CPU cores is the way to go.

And the 2-core and even 4-core situation was different... it is easy to parallel code to 2 core... it is a bit hard but still possible for 4-core... 8-core is a issue but I guess some games will get there but we are facing a limit after that because you can't parallelize anymore.

And even if you have more cores a stronger IPC/clock will matter more for games... like 4-Core with better IPC/clock will be better for games than 8-corw with lower IPC/Clock because games are still single apps that depends of the main task work that will make the others tasks stay in hold.

Let's take an example game A example:

Ryzen: Game A created 16 threads for all 16 virtual core... Task1 (main) will run at 50-70% CPU-core load but all others tasks will run at 20-25% CPU-core load.

Intel: Game A created 8 threads for all 8 virtual core... Task1 (main) will run at 50-70% CPU-core load but all others tasks will run at 40-50% CPU-core load.

It is the same game... parallelized with the number of CPU-core but because the tasks needs to wait and run based on what the main thread is working the use of the others core are small with increase of number of core.

Which will run faster?

The one with better IPC/clock and that has less tasks running because you reduce the overhead to control these tasks and the wait time in the whole process.

That is why more core won't happen for games in the future... we are already reaching a point for games that there is nothing more to be parallelized and open more threads will only makes the game lose performance.

I wish somebody could make a test with Ryzen 1700X running a game with 4, 8 and 16 virtual core... I'm sure the 16 will run worst.

You talked about consoles and consoles could have a way better performance in CPU with a 4-Core with better IPC/clock than Jaguar (AMD didn't have better Lowe power CPU-core at console releases).

Some guys says games will run better on 16-cores in the future but I will say that I won't live to see a game taking advantage of these 17-core to boost performance over 4-core or 8-core.

For games you will prefer less core with better IPC and high clocks.

"right now" is such a silly term, since 1600x is launching in what 2-3 months max? Thats not a crazy amount of time, it will pass quickly.

Also, while we are at it, yes we could say that 7700k is the gaming cpu to have right now but also that ryzen is the workstation cpu to have right now and it would also be smart to tell everyone to wait for 4 and 6 core ryzens before spending up to 2x more money on 7700k & good mobo.

So yes, it is quite a good position for AMD to be in, finally after such a long time and it is not very good spot for Intel... Intel is not going to drop the prices of their cpu's significantly since they already have problems with profits being lower than what analysts expect.

In the end, we all win since now Intel will finally have to speed up their cpu development again. I cant wait to see what can AMD do in notebook space, which is where Intel rules.

I agree it is silly but that how PC world works.

When 1600X releases people will remember that in 2-3 months will release the new Intel CPU.

If you will wait for the next release you will wait forever. Right now is the best you have like you will buy it before the next release.

 

[Coldfriction]

-snip-

Nobody can make a test for something that is five years into the future. Trust me, if a game developer made a game to run on Ryzen, and only Ryzen, right now, it would look a lot different than a piece of software that is made to run on generic intel multi-core systems.

For my computer, I would prefer longevity. Getting the most cores you can for your dollar has always shown to buy you the most time (ignoring the eight-core Bulldozer that was really eight-core in marketing speak only as far as games go). Also, waiting a few months isn't like waiting for the next best thing and never buying.

When was the right time to buy AMD stock? It looks like it was over a year ago. Your "right now" mentality doesn't jive with intelligent expenditure of money. Buying "the best" the instant you decide you want something is short sighted. Do some research before spending more than $50 on everything and your money goes a lot further.

The truth is, nobody is going to go wrong buying a Kaby Lake cpu today, but contrary to what you're trying to say, nobody is going to go wrong with a Ryzen cpu today either.

 

[ezodagrom]

So, a game already released programmed for already existing hardware represents the future? Same thing when quads and dual cores were first released. Software wasn't there. Nobody programs a game with the 6900 as it's target. Nobody really knows the future. People were claiming Bulldozer would get better with software, and it did, but not enough. Ryzen, however, is not Bulldozer.

You talk about the 6900 (I assume 6900K?), but, despite its low clock in comparison to the 7700K, the 6900K does better in each watch dogs 2 benchmark.

The 720p test (where the gpu is not a limiting factor), the 6, 8 and 10 core Intel CPUs are doing considerably better than either Ryzen or 7700K (this is the test where I said that Ryzen did better than the 7700K on Watch Dogs 2).
(There's obviously a gpu bottleneck in the 1080p test, seeing how close the 6, 8 and 10-core Intel CPUs are despite the differences at 720p).

1080p/ultra settings, with a Titan X Pascal. 6900K does a bit better than the 7700K, but I wonder if there could be a gpu bottleneck (if there is, maybe the 6900K could do even better?).

1080p/high settings, no idea which GPU they're using, 6900K again doing a bit better than the 7700K, but surprising at how little difference OCing does for either of them.

 

[ethomaz]

Nobody can make a test for something that is five years into the future. Trust me, if a game developer made a game to run on Ryzen, and only Ryzen, right now, it would look a lot different than a piece of software that is made to run on generic intel multi-core systems.

For my computer, I would prefer longevity. Getting the most cores you can for your dollar has always shown to buy you the most time (ignoring the eight-core Bulldozer that was really eight-core in marketing speak only as far as games go). Also, waiting a few months isn't like waiting for the next best thing and never buying.

When was the right time to buy AMD stock? It looks like it was over a year ago. Your "right now" mentality doesn't jive with intelligent expenditure of money. Buying "the best" the instant you decide you want something is short sighted. Do some research before spending more than $50 on everything and your money goes a lot further.

The truth is, nobody is going to go wrong buying a Kaby Lake cpu today, but contrary to what you're trying to say, nobody is going to go wrong with a Ryzen cpu today either.

Nobody will go wrong with any CPU at all... it is his money... his purchase lol

That didn't change the fact Intel has the best and cheaper option for games right now.

 

[Coldfriction]

Nobody will go wrong with any CPU at all...

That didn't change the fact Intel has the best and cheaper option for games right now.

What I'm trying to tell you is that this doesn't matter. "The best right now" isn't anything but your subjective opinion. It isn't the best right now if my purchase right now isn't for right now but for another five to ten years out. It can't be the best right now when my purchasing decisions are for a longer time period than the moment we're in. The "right now" purchase has to last five to ten years. You're preaching an incorrect sermon, people shouldn't listen to it.

 

[Coldfriction]

-snip-

What was the target hardware for Watch Dogs 2? I'm pretty sure it wasn't an eight core system on the PC. It does not represent the future, but what existing software is doing on an eight core system today.

 

[ethomaz]

What I'm trying to tell you is that this doesn't matter. "The best right now" isn't anything but your subjective opinion. It isn't the best right now if my purchase right now isn't for right now but for another five to ten years out. It can't be the best right now when my purchasing decisions are for a longer time period than the moment we're in. The "right now" purchase has to last five to ten years. You're preaching an incorrect sermon, people shouldn't listen to it.

That your opinion.

Objectively Intel hold the best and cheaper option for games right now.

You can indeed buy what you want based in your tastes and subjective option.

 

[Coldfriction]

That your opinion.

Objectively Intel hold the best and cheaper option for games right now.

You can indeed buy what you want based in your tastes and subjective option.

You can't use the superlative "the best" as you are and then state it's your opinion. You have to have a sample set of data that is impossible to have to say it is the best. You should be using language such as, "it's the better way to go if you want to maximize fps today." Calling it "the best" is wrong, it's poor language. Being honest, you'd qualify your statement by including that the future may show otherwise, but I feel like you're not being honest here.

 

[ethomaz]

You can't use the superlative "the best" as you are and then state it's your opinion. You have to have a sample set of data that is impossible to have to say it is the best. You should be using language such as, "it's the better way to go if you want to maximize fps today." Calling it "the best" is wrong, it's poor language. Being honest, you'd qualify your statement by including that the future may show otherwise, but I feel like you're not being honest here.

Looks at Reviews..
Looks at gaming benchmarks...
Looks at conclusions of gaming sites...
Looks at conclusions of pc sites about the gaming performance...

Yes I can.

 

[Coldfriction]

Looks at every game review...
Looks at conclusions of gaming sites...
Looks at conclusions of pc sites about the gaming performance...

Yes I can.

No you can't. A major expense is not "for today", it is for the lifetime of the purchase. Unless you can pull all future benchmarks out of your rear, you don't know what that is. You are not being objective. If you were measuring the CPU landscape without having to purchase anything, then sure, but you'd just swap to the next best thing the minute it shows up. Most people can't do that. You're lying to people saying it is "the best". You lose credibility and objectivity when you do that. Hindsight is 20/20, existing software with existing hardware is 20/20, the future is a blurry mess. People don't buy for the past that is known, they buy for the future that is unknown, like those who bought AMD stock under $2 a share, they didn't buy the stock for the moment, they bought it for the future and it paid off big time. I wish I were one of them.

 

[Renekton]

The tipping point for me was when i just ignored all the buzz and thought to myself in silence if I would be ok with a 4core (even if it is THE best in gaming) in my build for years to come...and im not. The 7700k is amazing but ill go with my gutfeeling that i would regret it.

The regret is when Intel releases i7 6-core mainstream by year end.