Ryzen vs Coffee Lake

D-Wiz said:
Just bought a Ryzen 1700X and ASRock board for less then $300 so no, not worried about the maybe 10% difference. Also at 4K its all the same.
Click to expand...

Nice, did same. Though I just bought a 1600, Microcenter deal was too good :). Luckily contacted Amazon and was able to return 1600, like my first return in a decade with them.
 
Yep got the Microcenter deal (and 960 EVO too). Actually first got the 259 price then a week later the 229 price drop. It was awesome.
 
With Coffee Lake 8700K going for over $400, if you can buy it compared to a 1700 for less than $300 (even the 1700x was $229 for awhile at Microcenter), I would be very hard pressed not to go Ryzen. Actually at this time if I needed a system I would go high on the motherboard, cheap on the processor as in a 1600 or less and then get Ryzen 2 next year when available.
 
I really wanted to get a Ryzen, but all the memory problems at launch and low oc's pushed me to return my cpu(1700x) anb go back to intel and a 7700K. I use my comp for 99% gaming and the games I play are not multithreaded(CSGO, etc..)..... I really hope Ryzen 2 opens up the clocks a bit more. Would be nice to see AMD get mid 4ghz oc's at least. The TR cpus seem so beastly, but I just don't have any need for them, but so cool all those cores. If Intel would have made the 8700k work on a Z270 I'd buy one and upgrade, but for me it's not worth it to upgrade the whole setup and Intel pulled another motherboard/chipset/socket $$$ shuffle. Why I'd so like to go back to AMD, but for MY uses Intel clearly wins; SADLY :(.
 
noko said:
Good grief, experience wise, gaming, RyZen does just fine and in very limited situations would one even notice. RyZen pretty much killed Kaby lake resulting in one of the shortest Intel CPU lifespan ever :LOL:.

Also folks, you do know that Summit Ridge is near EOL and it may already be at the tail end of production. Pinnacle Ridge, 12nm LP process is around the corner. The cadence is very much stepped up which actually this time we can thank Intel for releasing a good processor in Coffee Lake which will make AMD have to deliver sooner rather than later.

Intel maybe headed towards more grief in 2018 from AMD as well with better APU's that blow away Intel offerings, even including performance/watt besides faster RyZens.

Now I took advantage of the memory sales, got 32gb more of DDR 4 3200 Cas 14 stuff. Some Trident Z and FlareX. Will come in handy for the coming year.
Click to expand...

If PR can give a 10% clock bump + 10% IPC bump, Drop all Quad-Cores to R3 (1250, 1350x*No SMT* , 1450, 1550x) have R5 be all Six-Cores(1630, 1630x, 1670,1670x) and the R7 (1730, 1730x, 1770x, 1890x)
 
I don't think there will be an IPC bump until next go around with Zen2. I think this is just a die shrink which will hopefully lead to better clockspeed.
 
JNavy89GT said:
I really wanted to get a Ryzen, but all the memory problems at launch and low oc's pushed me to return my cpu(1700x) anb go back to intel and a 7700K. I use my comp for 99% gaming and the games I play are not multithreaded(CSGO, etc..)..... I really hope Ryzen 2 opens up the clocks a bit more. Would be nice to see AMD get mid 4ghz oc's at least. The TR cpus seem so beastly, but I just don't have any need for them, but so cool all those cores. If Intel would have made the 8700k work on a Z270 I'd buy one and upgrade, but for me it's not worth it to upgrade the whole setup and Intel pulled another motherboard/chipset/socket $$$ shuffle. Why I'd so like to go back to AMD, but for MY uses Intel clearly wins; SADLY :(.
Click to expand...

During my TR build, I had some downtime and had to revert to using my delidded 6700K and Max 8 Formula, all watercooled. For the workload I was putting thru it, vpn, RAID, encoding on top of normal duties, the poor 6700K was getting choked. Often I found myself missing all them coresssss!
 
ManofGod said:
Out of these two, the one you want to spend the money on is the best choice. That said, I think the Ryzen is the best, especially for the money. AMD is kicking butt and taking names, something they had not been doing for a long time. Trolls and InBoys do not change the facts, thankfully. I do not need another computer but, I sure would love to build one, especially with the prices what they are at this time. (Except memory, of course.)
Click to expand...

I'm in the process of building a second 'Linux' system; I'd have gone Ryzen if I hadn't upgraded my primary to an 8700k and thus had excess Intel parts. If not for gaming, Ryzen's cores/$ wins. And RAM prices bite! I paid as much for 2x8GB of DDR4 as I paid last year for 2x16GB of DDR4 :(.

D-Wiz said:
Just bought a Ryzen 1700X and ASRock board for less then $300 so no, not worried about the maybe 10% difference. Also at 4K its all the same.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: it's 'all the same at 4k' today.

But we keep our CPUs for a long time, usually, so tomorrow Ryzen will be slower at all resolutions- while at the same time, we'll be upgrading to >60Hz panels, even at 4k, and trying to hit the >90FPS needed for VR. This is why today, for gaming, I cannot recommend Ryzen. Need to get some work done? Great! Need to maintain gaming FPS going forward? Get Intel and clock high.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'm in the process of building a second 'Linux' system; I'd have gone Ryzen if I hadn't upgraded my primary to an 8700k and thus had excess Intel parts. If not for gaming, Ryzen's cores/$ wins. And RAM prices bite! I paid as much for 2x8GB of DDR4 as I paid last year for 2x16GB of DDR4 :(.



Here's the thing: it's 'all the same at 4k' today.

But we keep our CPUs for a long time, usually, so tomorrow Ryzen will be slower at all resolutions- while at the same time, we'll be upgrading to >60Hz panels, even at 4k, and trying to hit the >90FPS needed for VR. This is why today, for gaming, I cannot recommend Ryzen. Need to get some work done? Great! Need to maintain gaming FPS going forward? Get Intel and clock high.
Click to expand...
So how do you comment on all the increases in most games after optimizations with Ryzen? Seems you are being short sighted and just touting a VERY narrow difference. Again as I mentioned earlier the construction cores did not see a decline over their lifespan but rather an increase, mostly due to core increase usage in games but also optimizations for the architecture from both the game software and Windows scheduling. Right now and in the future there is virtually NO difference for 99% of the consumer base choosing either. And depending on future CPU socket compatibility that choice could very well have more legs than the other.
 
Threads like this make me cringe, and this one did. Best use cases and self professed opinion of importance with almost no working knowledge or personal experience. At this point in time either or is like choosing tomatoes from one basket over the other because deep down you want to believe it makes a difference in your life.

Fanboyism is a disease.
 
thesmokingman said:
During my TR build, I had some downtime and had to revert to using my delidded 6700K and Max 8 Formula, all watercooled. For the workload I was putting thru it, vpn, RAID, encoding on top of normal duties, the poor 6700K was getting choked. Often I found myself missing all them coresssss!
Click to expand...

Yeah no doubt if I did anything more challenging than my "simple" games I'd be in the same boat. I still have my old Xeon 6 core/12 thread X58 system and I love that old dog :). My main game is CSGO and it likes the mhz for most consistent HIGH FPS. Looking forward to when I can have the best of both worlds. Hope AMD can scale the frequency better in next revisions. Get somewhat more competitive in frequency anyway vs Intel and oc a bit better. Wishes :).
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'm in the process of building a second 'Linux' system; I'd have gone Ryzen if I hadn't upgraded my primary to an 8700k and thus had excess Intel parts. If not for gaming, Ryzen's cores/$ wins. And RAM prices bite! I paid as much for 2x8GB of DDR4 as I paid last year for 2x16GB of DDR4 :(.



Here's the thing: it's 'all the same at 4k' today.

But we keep our CPUs for a long time, usually, so tomorrow Ryzen will be slower at all resolutions- while at the same time, we'll be upgrading to >60Hz panels, even at 4k, and trying to hit the >90FPS needed for VR. This is why today, for gaming, I cannot recommend Ryzen. Need to get some work done? Great! Need to maintain gaming FPS going forward? Get Intel and clock high.
Click to expand...

There is a very specific gaming aspect that Ryzen is slower at - which is geometry. And that generally is not the limiting factor in gaming until you get into higher (>100fps) framerates. So I disagree that at 4k it will become an issue until video cards are powerful enough to where geometry is the limitation. And at that point, framerates will be where they are at 1080p now, and again, not an issue as it will only start to limit things over 100fps. Also, the trend towards more threading will likely apply to geometry in an advantageous way in the future, to where having 8c/16t will be better than 4c/8t or 6c/12t at higher single core speeds.

What we do see at 4k now, is that Ryzen is often a few fps faster than intel (well, prior to coffee lake), probably because it's slightly better able to feed the video card what it needs when it's not in a geometry limited situation. Games would have to have somewhat of a paradigm shift for geometry to be the limiting factor at framerates below the 100fps range. So yeah, if all of a sudden newer games start to load up on geometry and don't trend to more threading at the same time, Ryzen will be a bad future bet. But, games are currently trending opposite that (more threading and geometry not a limiting factor).

In VR it's even more video card limited.
 
adobian said:
Has anyone bought a Ryzen 1700 and overclocked it then regret that you could have bought the i7 8700K instead ?
Click to expand...

No regrets, glad I bought a 1700, it clocks to 4050 with ease, GTX 1070, 16 gig memory @ 1440, no regrets at all...
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Why are you moving the goalpost to 'release/pre-optimization Ryzen'?
Click to expand...
How is that "moving goal posts"? You assert that a level of performance is set going forward which I have PROVED is not the case when looking at the construction cores over the last 5 years. Seems you are the one flailing about, beating of the chest and screaming at the sky here. Look at Vulkan, which is the possible outcome of future implementation and one can easily see that CPUs are far from ever being the limitation in games.

ONLY you are posting like this is some kind of pissing match. I have already said the performance across the board is virtually IDENTICAL for most users. For those that make their living on said PCs then they should determine which is the better performer and purchase that, likely Intel. Also going forward the platforms future utilization of next gen CPUs will also need to be considered. AMD has stated AM4 will go forward thru 2020 at least. Whether that means ZEN2 and Zen3 and so on will be able to work in AM4 is still unknown. Even Intel is unknown but if the 8 core rumor is true it looks like the 9 series may require a new socket.

There are far too many factors to make blanket statements as to winners or losers, this isn't like last gen. Saying things like "If you game get Intel" is asinine and shortsighted and VERY misleading, bordering on lies, as it makes a blanket statement with very negative inferences. I game more than any of you I bet, yet I have not had a single problem gaming at 100hz. CONTEXT is king.
 
JustReason said:
You assert that a level of performance is set going forward which I have PROVED is not the case when looking at the construction cores over the last 5 years.
Click to expand...

Construction cores != Ryzen

JustReason said:
Look at Vulkan, which is the possible outcome of future implementation and one can easily see that CPUs are far from ever being the limitation in games
Click to expand...

This has mostly just been shown in simple shooters, and in particular, using a single game engine. To assert wider applicability would be silly.

JustReason said:
I have already said the performance across the board is virtually IDENTICAL for most users.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you used your own anecdote about construction cores- which I countered with my own anecdote, where I'm seeing 80FPS with a top-end 8700K + 1080Ti system. Your point is moot.

JustReason said:
There are far too many factors to make blanket statements as to winners or losers, this isn't like last gen.
Click to expand...

The blanket statement is this, and remains true: Ryzen is significantly slower in maximum single-thread performance, which is what CPU-bound games crave, and that makes Ryzen a poor recommendation for gaming.
 
Name-calling / Insults
IdiotInCharge said:
Construction cores != Ryzen



This has mostly just been shown in simple shooters, and in particular, using a single game engine. To assert wider applicability would be silly.



Yes, and you used your own anecdote about construction cores- which I countered with my own anecdote, where I'm seeing 80FPS with a top-end 8700K + 1080Ti system. Your point is moot.



The blanket statement is this, and remains true: Ryzen is significantly slower in maximum single-thread performance, which is what CPU-bound games crave, and that makes Ryzen a poor recommendation for gaming.
Click to expand...
Ok lets start here:
Has anyone bought a Ryzen 1700 and overclocked it then regret that you could have bought the i7 8700K instead ?
Click to expand...

This is the thread topic. What Ryzen do you or did you own?

Second Back to your post. How about you prove how significant this discrepancy is. Remember Context is KING. None of your posts have context, just baseless statements with fanboi overtones.

I would comment more but seems thus far you have evaded most points and focused solely on aspects you can obfuscate.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
-which is anything that requires high single-thread performance, FTFY
Click to expand...

If we assume the game in question is largely single threaded then yes, but again single thread is largely influenced by clockspeed and it is why the ryzen systems ive built are very similar in performance to similar clocked haswell systems I still own.

If it moves to very well scaled games then the gap to Intel is so small its pointless to even debate, that was well covered by Jim using AC Origins which is one of those rare games that core scales and how the ol i5's die a tragic death.

If one is utter fanboy and wants to game then yeah Intel may offer him a slightly better experience provided he is paying top dollar, if it is midrange it is hard pressed to go anything Intel at current elevated price ranges.

I have been hearing for months how bad Ryzen apparently is yet I don't see it in the experience, I recently updated my step brothers R3 1200 to a 1600 and I think that is actually better than my 4790K which funnily enough in a game called Infestation NewZ gets beaten by another friends 8350, very odd and only once I disabled HT i realized the game hates threads as the 4460 in the step sisters rig was matching my 4790K FPS anyway that is besides the point.
 
I've never seen the point of building a PC around CS:GO, our office machines use old Pentium Dual Cores and GTX 210's and it runs CS:GO alright, old APU's were able to get 100FPS on mediumish settings. The game runs on potatoes and should never be the pinnacle standard used. The game remains popular for that reason, though it is slowly dying out now. As new games force hardware to move up, people want to upgrade to get off just being CS:GOlites and get new systems where the last thing they want to do is play CS:GO on it, this is probably why Shroud and Summit1G have moved on.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
If we assume the game in question is largely single threaded then yes, but again single thread is largely influenced by clockspeed and it is why the ryzen systems ive built are very similar in performance to similar clocked haswell systems I still own.
Click to expand...

Buy Ryzen for gaming, it's just as fast as five year old Intel!

You're proving my point here.
 
name calling will not be tolerated
As noted in a different thread, IdiotInCharge has a specific use for his 8700k which is pushing 165Hz for gaming. He wakes up every morning to find that he's creamed his pants dreaming about his 8700k. So while it is true that pretty much any mid to high end CPU from the last 5 years will work well for gaming (or at least within 10-20% of each other depending on the engine used, etc.), he will never concede the point due to his use case.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Oh say can we see.

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_vs_sandy_bridge_2600k_ipc_review/4

The 7700K was sub 20% over the aging Sandy's, if Haswell is considered you are probably looking in that 5-10% range and given how little performance gains from Kaby to Coffee in single thread domain, yeah if you are using a Haswell or Devils Canyon, there is no reason to upgrade if it is just gaming you want.
Click to expand...

And those CPUs clock significantly higher than Ryzen. Higher clocks * higher IPC means longer gaming legs.
 
kirbyrj said:
As noted in a different thread, IdiotInCharge has a specific use for his 8700k which is pushing 165Hz for gaming. He wakes up every morning to find that he's creamed his pants dreaming about his 8700k. So while it is true that pretty much any mid to high end CPU from the last 5 years will work well for gaming (or at least within 10-20% of each other depending on the engine used, etc.), he will never concede the point due to his use case.
Click to expand...

If steam surveys (oi vei) are anything to go buy, about 90% of steams database are gamers that are still using 60hz panels and 60hz gaming is still the most popular and demanded segment. This bull about 100 or 120 or 140 whichever Ryzen doesnt' attain for that specific game is utter obfuscation of what "most" actually need.

165hz is a niche market, I have seen them rave about how amazing it makes their experience, up until a guy with a 2500K and GTX 670's (yes i had that until June this year) utterly wrecks them in battlefield.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
And those CPUs clock significantly higher than Ryzen. Higher clocks * higher IPC means longer gaming legs.
Click to expand...

ryzen-r7-1800x-bench-bf1.png


ryzen-r7-1800x-gtav.png


ryzen-r7-1800x-mll.png


It looks like the Sandy's at 4.5Ghz are pretty irrelevant to those slow 1800X at stock, so yeah you need that 4.5ghz and some just to not bottleneck.
 
Here is a great review, even being somewhat old comparing a $200 Ryzen 1600 (cheaper now) to an Intel HEDT cpu 7800K $450 on a much more expensive platform - both 6 core 12 threads using a 1080 Ti at 1080p gaming. 30 games. He used good fast ram (still not optimized fully which will also increase frame rates) but at least he did this right.



Ryzen really does game just fine even for faster monitors - GPU in most cases is still the bottleneck unless one want to game less than 1080p. Personally it is 3440x1440p minimum resolution and up. As for gaming at the present time a 1600 OC to the same speed as a 8 core version will perform virtually the same. For a gaming machine the 1600 is a great buy.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
If steam surveys (oi vei) are anything to go buy, about 90% of steams database are gamers that are still using 60hz panels and 60hz gaming is still the most popular and demanded segment. This bull about 100 or 120 or 140 whichever Ryzen doesnt' attain for that specific game is utter obfuscation of what "most" actually need.

165hz is a niche market, I have seen them rave about how amazing it makes their experience, up until a guy with a 2500K and GTX 670's (yes i had that until June this year) utterly wrecks them in battlefield.
Click to expand...
165hz or 144hz at 1440p or above is virtually always GPU limited to much slower speeds unless one turn down quality settings. If 144 fps is so important and make such a huge gaming experience difference then what happens when your favorite game can only run at 80fps at 1440p maxed out? It is now a crappy stutter fest? :LOL: One will have nightmares? How about games that the frame rates are all over the place from 165fps to 65fps depending upon what is going on the screen - if 144fps is so butterly smooth, what happens when your game drops down to those terrible sub 100fps zone :yuck:? Constantly? Maybe one will get sick with the variable frame times.

In VR Ryzen does great and there is no issue - period. If you have a properly configured, optimized system, Intel or AMD you will be able to do VR the same between them. 90fps is 90fps and is the same between them.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
If steam surveys (oi vei) are anything to go buy, about 90% of steams database are gamers that are still using 60hz panels and 60hz gaming is still the most popular and demanded segment. This bull about 100 or 120 or 140 whichever Ryzen doesnt' attain for that specific game is utter obfuscation of what "most" actually need.

165hz is a niche market, I have seen them rave about how amazing it makes their experience, up until a guy with a 2500K and GTX 670's (yes i had that until June this year) utterly wrecks them in battlefield.
Click to expand...
The thing is, Ryzen does over 100fps just fine, as per video above - GPU is still the limitation and the benefit of over 90fps gaming has such diminishing returns that for most it is pointless but not all.
 
noko said:
Here is a great review, even being somewhat old comparing a $200 Ryzen 1600 (cheaper now) to an Intel HEDT cpu 7800K $450 on a much more expensive platform - both 6 core 12 threads using a 1080 Ti at 1080p gaming. 30 games. He used good fast ram (still not optimized fully which will also increase frame rates) but at least he did this right.



Ryzen really does game just fine even for faster monitors - GPU in most cases is still the bottleneck unless one want to game less than 1080p. Personally it is 3440x1440p minimum resolution and up. As for gaming at the present time a 1600 OC to the same speed as a 8 core version will perform virtually the same. For a gaming machine the 1600 is a great buy.
Click to expand...

Ryzen has gamed well from the get go, it was obfuscated by initial issues with tomb Raider and the aging GTA 5 however Adored did cover substantial gains in tomb Raider.

In multithread games like AC origins, AMD is showing great future performance. The gaming thing is a load of crap
 
noko said:
The thing is, Ryzen does over 100fps just fine, as per video above - GPU is still the limitation and the benefit of over 90fps gaming has such diminishing returns that for most it is pointless but not all.
Click to expand...
Yes i already know it does
 
IdiotInCharge said:
But the important counterargument for 'Ryzen is fast enough for 60FPS' is that it's only valid for today. And that doesn't just apply to performance, but also expectations: VR needs more, for example, and with 4k120 around the corner, more and more gamers are going to be moving to higher-refresh displays too.
Click to expand...

4k120 huh? Considering Ryzen hits 120 at lower resolutions for most games, I do not see Ryzen being a bottleneck for a LONG time.
 
My Ryzen must be glitching then since I get well over 100 fps at 1080p in games, especially since my monitor is 144Hz, I should be unhappy with it. I could understand this stance with the old FX chips but with Ryzen it's just hyperbole.
 
Ryzen is only good for 60FPS guys, clearly Steve Methodology man Burke is posting fake results, there is no way 120 is remotely possible
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Ryzen is only good for 60FPS guys, clearly Steve Methodology man Burke is posting fake results, there is no way 120 is remotely possible
Click to expand...

I would agree. If you want to run 100-120-144-165 Hz, then you want an Intel system. Intel has higher IPC which means higher framerates.

If you are a 60hz player. Then Ryzen is perfect.
 
So if I say Intel is faster, you say 'but Ryzen is fast enough!'. And if I say Ryzen is slower, you say 'but Ryzen is fast enough!'. I'm not arguing for or against 'fast enough', and arguing that as a counter-argument would be goal-post moving.

My point is that Ryzen is slower, today, which you all have gone out of your way to prove correct, and my extrapolation is that it will be even slower down the road, which while not absolutely provable either way, is an assertion that is supported the trend of games increasing in graphical and system complexity.

The countering assertion- that games are becoming more multi-threaded and moving to lower overhead APIs, thus single-thread performance is becoming less important than it is today- depends entirely on the frontier of game development more or less standing still.

And that's easy to disprove: going forward, higher framerate equipment, both for the desktop and for consoles, will become widely available and thus will be targeted for game development, as will VR, which are facts, and we can extrapolate that the resource requirements for each frame will also go up too. Thus, while there may be some gains from more efficient threading and APIs, there will also be a greater demand for resources.

Thus it stands to reason that the best CPU is the one that has the best single-thread performance and has enough thread capacity to support current and future games. And that's the 8700k until AMD or Intel release something better.
 
We are still more GPU limited today than CPU limited. At 4k you are always GPU limited so the whole fast enough is apt, when a haswell is still not worth upgrading from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top