GTX 1080 Ti Test on Ryzen and Intel Kaby Lake

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Ryzen numbers. Not buying one anytime soon, but I encode and rip video all the time as well as CD's. Ryzen does those things, way way faster than everything Intel has right now. Gaming, 7700k still wins in most games. For everything else just about, Ryzen is either as fast or faster. When OC'd Ryzen does even better in everything, not gaming. Once game companies and AMD can collude, Games will fly on Ryzen. I hope that does eventually happen, if it does, I doubt I'll dump my i5 but I'd definitely opt for a second PC which would be a Ryzen based one. I've missed AMD being in the competitive area with CPU's, it's been a long long time. 100fps in 1080 in most games on Ryzen, is still damn good, especially since nothing is optimized for Ryzen right now.
 
GoodBoy said:
The AMD is definitely not a Gaming CPU.
Click to expand...
I'd just say its not a gaming optimized CPU, but certainly you can build a kickass system with a AMD 1700 that will have no problems delivering a smooth gaming experience.

After all, most of us are not going to be running the fastest graphics card that is currently available on the market, the 1080 Ti, nor gaming at a lowly 1080p in 2017 with such a card, so your GPU is usually going to be the bottlneck and the 1700 offers more than enough performance.

If building exclusively a gaming PC that will never be used for anything else, you might then opt for a Intel 6600K, since its a bit cheaper than a AMD 1700. But chances are you may want to use your powerful computer for things other than video games on occasion, and so spending a few extra dollars for a power efficient 16 threaded CPU is not a bad idea by any means.
 
Ducman69 said:
I'd just say its not a gaming optimized CPU, but certainly you can build a kickass system with a AMD 1700 that will have no problems delivering a smooth gaming experience.

After all, most of us are not going to be running the fastest graphics card that is currently available on the market, the 1080 Ti, nor gaming at a lowly 1080p in 2017 with such a card, so your GPU is usually going to be the bottlneck. If building exclusively a gaming PC, you might then opt for a Intel 6600K, since its a bit cheaper than a AMD 1700, but chances are you may want to use your powerful computer for things other than video games on occasion, and so spending a few extra dollars for a power efficient 16 threaded CPU is not a bad idea by any means.
Click to expand...
I game at 1080 at 144hz that is why I will be building the next PC with a 7700k. I will say this i don't see a real reason to go 4k, so few games use 4k textures and the textures themselves look just as good at 1080 as they do at 4k, so until 4k textures become a thing i don't see myself making the jump.
 
Presbytier said:
I game at 1080 at 144hz that is why I will be building the next PC with a 7700k. I will say this i don't see a real reason to go 4k, so few games use 4k textures and the textures themselves look just as good at 1080 as they do at 4k, so until 4k textures become a thing i don't see myself making the jump.
Click to expand...
I think even older games with low resolution textures look great at higher resolutions, but that's a personal preference.

I'm definitely a bigger = better (to a point) 21:9 ultra-wide 3K screen guy for now, after ogling everything in the stores, even at pedestrian 60hz refresh rates. My only regret right now is my 34" screen is too tiny, and I'd like to upgrade to a curved 38", and at 3440x1440 I'm not worried that a AMD 1700 is going to hold me back, and am happy with a solid 60FPS.

I'm also interested in VR, and you really need high resolution on those too to avoid screen door effect.
 
I would personally only be buying a 1080ti to game in 4k right now so any other benchmark would essentially be moot. I wouldn't be buying the card to future proof my 1080p experience 4 years from now when it can't play new games at 4k any longer. Aside from Theif, the 4k delivery of both cpu's were essentially the same, so why not buy the cheapest one and call it a day?
 
so this means that most likely 4.0 GHZ Rysen will bottleneck a 1080 ti SLI more than a stock 7700.
 
MADNOD said:
so this means that most likely 4.0 GHZ Rysen will bottleneck a 1080 ti SLI more than a stock 7700.
Click to expand...

That would be strange considering my R9 Fury Crossfire setup is not bottlenecked. However, it is GPU limited at 4k which is why I did not really see any increase in Crysis 3 at 4k at max settings, minus AA. Minimums most likely improved though.
 
Presbytier said:
I game at 1080 at 144hz that is why I will be building the next PC with a 7700k. I will say this i don't see a real reason to go 4k, so few games use 4k textures and the textures themselves look just as good at 1080 as they do at 4k, so until 4k textures become a thing i don't see myself making the jump.
Click to expand...

I have been on 4k since June of 2015 and will not go back. Thankfully, the monitor i have looks great at 1080p and 1440p as well on AMD hardware. When I had a 980 Ti for a time, it did not scale well at all on the monitor I have, just the way it was.
 
Looking at this review, I take away two things:

1. On a practical side, with Ryzen and the 1080 or 1080ti, you will get 100+ fps at anything but 4k. We all knew that Ryzen wasn't going to beat Intel's latest and greatest. There were even people stating that if it could get up to Ivy Bridge numbers, they'd consider it a win for AMD. I always say that a computer is a tool, and you buy the tool that is right for you. If your primary concern is 144 refresh gaming, then the Intel processor is for you. But if you don't have that high demand of fps, then Ryzen will game just fine - just not as "fast" as a 7700k. But since Ryzen can do other computing tasks much faster than the 7700k......

2. The synthetic benchmarks should not be discarded in the whole discussion. Here, the Ryzen 1700 is much closer in performance to the 7700k, and destroys it in the physics benchmark. I view synthetics as the potential of the hardware. The potential, if the games are coded to take advantage of Ryzen, is so much better than what we currently have. IF (that is a huge if) game developers do some optimizations on their code (either patches or for new releases) we could see scenarios where some games perform as good or better on Ryzen than on Intel.
 
ManofGod said:
That would be strange considering my R9 Fury Crossfire setup is not bottlenecked. However, it is GPU limited at 4k which is why I did not really see any increase in Crysis 3 at 4k at max settings, minus AA. Minimums most likely improved though.
Click to expand...

it is a matter of scalling, 2 1080ti in SLI and overclocked at 4K might behave like the single 1080ti at 1440p (compare the GPU horse power VS number of pixel) .

i hope a SLI scaling test is done soon.

keep in mind that the 7700K still have around 20% more headroom to go at 5 GHZ.
 
GDI Lord said:
Personally I think that it will take about two months, maybe three, for everyone to iron things out to at least a 90% Level of Ironed-Outness. 100% might come in a year or two.

Personally I would love to know how outputs from Intel's C/C++ compiler run on Ryzen. Does anyone have any comparable performance figures for any non-trivial code that's been compiled on Clang, GCC, MSVC and Intel's C++ Compiler? OK, fine, ANY code, non-trivial or otherwise, single or multithreaded?

Also, it's been a long time since I cared if Intel's compilers played nicely with anyone else's CPUs. Have they still been "go[ing] out of their way to deoptimize code on non-Intel CPUs?" Eight years is a lot of time to slowly start sneaking code back into their codebase - not that they've needed to of course, given how, er, "delightful" AMD CPUs have been performing relative to Intel CPUs.

What did you say? That I should take off my corporate conspiracy theory hat? But it's so shiny and pretty! OK, fine, I'll take it off now.
Click to expand...

It's going to take more then two months. You have to realize amd doesn't have the resources to make that happen unlike Intel.
 
ikevi said:
Not saying I don't want to know what the eventual performance we would achieve of a given product, but when did we start waiting for patches on Hardware weeks after it is being sold resale to make a call on if it is good compared to the competition?
Click to expand...

Every AMD release? :sneaky:
 
Last time I was with AMD CPU wise was when the 3700+ San Diego chip was out. Was a rocking processor for me at the time. Never had issues in games. But after that point I hopped back over to Intel and never looked back.

But even though I haven't been with AMD in a while I still root for them to succeed. I want them to be that underdog that comes out of the dark and catches Intel by surprise. Hopefully with some time Ryzen will mature.

In the fall I plan on doing a upgrade CPU wise for myself and my wife. I will definitely be looking at AMD and how far things have progressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top