Ryzen vs Coffee Lake

JustReason said:
Ok lets start here:


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.
Click to expand...

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...

Does this Forum have to be a safe space? I think we are going a little overboard with all of this banning.
 
Brackle said:
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.

Psst - it was sarcasm.
If you are a 60hz player. Then Ryzen is perfect.
Click to expand...

Psst - it was sarcasm.

IdiotInCharge said:
I'm talking about going forward.
Click to expand...

Going Forward, Ryzen will not be a bottleneck at 4k. Going Forward BEYOND that, Ryzen will still not be a bottleneck. And going forward even further, most will have upgraded to Ryzen 3 for less money than purchasing a CFL with Z-370 costs now.
 
Nightfire said:
Going Forward, Ryzen will not be a bottleneck at 4k. Going Forward BEYOND that, Ryzen will still not be a bottleneck. And going forward even further, most will have upgraded to Ryzen 3 for less money than purchasing a CFL with Z-370 costs now.
Click to expand...

Of course it will be a bottleneck. So will any CPU available today, going forward. The point is that it will be more of a bottleneck, which has already been proven.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'm talking about going forward.
Click to expand...

The same old song and dance, next the 9700K then the 1080K, then the 2080K is the best, the fact remains is that most games just need a moderately clocked Haswell part or moderately clocked Ryzen part to game well with pretty comfortable 100-120FPS range on 1080P, once you go up from that you hit GPU limitations so yes, now and for the foreseeable future those 5 year old parts will still offer great gaming experience.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
The same old song and dance, next the 9700K then the 1080K, then the 2080K is the best, the fact remains is that most games just need a moderately clocked Haswell part or moderately clocked Ryzen part to game well with pretty comfortable 100-120FPS range on 1080P, once you go up from that you hit GPU limitations so yes, now and for the foreseeable future those 5 year old parts will still offer great gaming experience.
Click to expand...

And you base your divinations on what, exactly?

Do you expect game complexity to remain static? Do you expect game graphics to remain static? Do you expect gamer expectations for responsiveness to remain static? Has that been your experience with gaming over the years?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Of course it will be a bottleneck. So will any CPU available today, going forward. The point is that it will be more of a bottleneck, which has already been proven.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see one benchmark where an R5 or R7 clocked at 3.8 ghz (low end of an overclock) bottlenecks anything at 4k.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
And you base your divinations on what, exactly?

Do you expect game complexity to remain static? Do you expect game graphics to remain static? Do you expect gamer expectations for responsiveness to remain static? Has that been your experience with gaming over the years?
Click to expand...

Like everything, Intel will release new parts and AMD will release new parts, so if you are buying a February Ryzen you will have a February update to that. That is irrelevant anyways as buying a Ryzen CPU will still give you a good gaming experience at a very good cost even with the limitation on clocks. Add in it is easier to keep a Ryzen CPU cool, I am running a stock fan on the 1600 and it is running a charm, my step brother has noticed massive gains over the 1200 and it is normally 33 degrees centigrade in our home, the CPU barely touches the 70's
 
LOL he comes off as a big futurist. Problem is the future comes much slower than the tech geeks anticipate. PC has been struggling with just 60 FPS at 4k for most games. "Hey guys 4k 120 is just around the corner!!" "Soon we will be playing 1440p at 240hz!!" "Anything less an 8700k running at 5.0 Ghz is a waste of money going forward!"
 
A while back I said the 8700K will be around 450 dollars as resellers were going to blow up profits on this part, it happened before when Intel went to quads that the resellers just marked up the crap out of the parts and it never really dropped but rather became the status quo.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...sp=Cat_CPU-Processors_1-_-Visnav-_-Intel-i7_2

460 dollars that requires another 100+ for copious cooling on top, I remember when Intel used to be efficient, seems like the ramming up clock speed has its downside.
 
Nightfire said:
LOL he comes off as a big futurist. Problem is the future comes much slower than the tech geeks anticipate. PC has been struggling with just 60 FPS at 4k for most games. "Hey guys 4k 120 is just around the corner!!" "Soon we will be playing 1440p at 240hz!!" "Anything less an 8700k running at 5.0 Ghz is a waste of money going forward!"
Click to expand...

As above I was still running a 2500K with SLI 670's on 60hz, i upgraded to a 4790K and Impact with 32GB DDR3 1866 (sold half) and a 980ti and was really happy with the upgrade. I was then told go to 144hz it's amazing and I have never felt more lied to in my life. It was probably a waste of money and should have gone 1440 or 4K with lower hz.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
As above I was still running a 2500K with SLI 670's on 60hz, i upgraded to a 4790K and Impact with 32GB DDR3 1866 (sold half) and a 980ti and was really happy with the upgrade. I was then told go to 144hz it's amazing and I have never felt more lied to in my life. It was probably a waste of money and should have gone 1440 or 4K with lower hz.
Click to expand...

And going from 60Hz to 100Hz+ was a revelation for me. You're arguing subjectives.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
So alas we reach the impass, buying a computer is subjective and this is probably why Ryzen sells so well.
Click to expand...

Which is why prices have plummeted since Intel released their supposedly-overpriced 8000-series?

Ryzen is incredible if you need to get well-threaded work done, gaming or otherwise. If your work is single-thread dependent, then Intel has your product, today. And if you're building a gaming rig, then you're better off with Intel.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Which is why prices have plummeted since Intel released their supposedly-overpriced 8000-series?

Ryzen is incredible if you need to get well-threaded work done, gaming or otherwise. If your work is single-thread dependent, then Intel has your product, today. And if you're building a gaming rig, then you're better off with Intel.
Click to expand...

Most people don't know what single threaded, multi threaded or the like is, all they see is Ryzen giving good all round balance and efficiency at a very good price (nothing below Ryzen 7 got a price drop), they read reviews which show the 1600 offering stunning value and buy it, the 1700 for those needing the big cores offers stunning value and all in all the tech world has given Ryzen the great big thumbs up, enough to give it brand of the year. In that time intel has bumbled out Kabylake, skylake x, kaby lakex and coffee lake, all of them have left the techworld bewildered as to why only when pushed does Intel pull thumb, or the absolute WTF 299 has been.

Pinnacle Ridge has big shoes to fill and I think most will look to how far AMD can push clocks up, if they get good gains their the gap will continue to close rapidly and the kicker is AM4 owners don't need a new board, or prospective buyers don't need to shell a fortune on a board, right now there are 2 B350 boards that have achieved glowing accolades on features and enthusiast performance, no need to even consider a crosshair.
 
lw.jpg
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Of course it will be a bottleneck. So will any CPU available today, going forward. The point is that it will be more of a bottleneck, which has already been proven.
Click to expand...

I think this is where you're wrong. A 2600k is barely a bottleneck in today's games, but with the trend to more threading (pushed in large part by consoles), it will be very soon. And an 8c/16t processor will be less of a bottleneck 3-5 years from now than a 4c/8t or 6c/12t process that has higher clocks (not ipc, that's instructions per clock and lets be clear, intel has little to no advantage in ipc, it's clock speed they have an advantage in).
 
Rauelius said:
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)
Click to expand...

PR uses the same Zen muarch than SR. So there is no IPC bump. Only clock bump, because PR is a Richland.-like refresh of SR. 10% higher clocks? Maybe.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

Games aren't thoughput workloads, so there is a master thread and single core performance is relevant, because if the master thread is bottlenecked then any slave thread will be bottlenecked no matter how many core you give to the engine.

CFL i3 (~KBL i5) is so fast like R7 1800X on AC origins. That "tragic death" claim is so incorrect as the dozens of similar claims made since Bulldozer about the death of i5s...

qqeKTqZnuXpvXawBz4nATR-650-80.png
 
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...


THAT flawed review cited again...

(i) GPU bound and frame limiting settings.
(ii) Enginering sample for Intel
(iii) Mobo imcompatible with the i7 and he managed to burn the CPU...

IdiotInCharge said:
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.
Click to expand...

When Bulldozer was released the claim was that Bulldozer did bring mainstream 8-core and "soon" games would start using all cores and Bulldozer would beat i5s. It didn't happen.

When consoles got 8-cores the claim was that "soon" games would start using eigth-cores cores and Piledriver would beat i5s. I remember Eurogamer publishing a ridiculous analysis and claiming that FX-8350 was more "future proof" than i5. It didn't happen.

When Mantle was launched, the claim was that single-thread bottleneck was eliminated from APIs and "soon" games would start running faster on AMD hardware. It didn't happen.

Same claims repeated with DX12 and Vulkan. It didn't happen.

Similar claims at RyZen launch and false promises about supposed legion of coming 'patched' games. It didn't happen, besides a pair of broken games that were patched but still they did run faster on Intel after the patches. I remember one of those games. I was runing 80% slower on RyZen before the patch and then running 40% slower after the patch. Intel was faster.

So the meaning of "soon" is permanently changed. Now "soon" means the next year. It will not happen. And I guess that by 2020, people will be claiming how "soon" games will run faster on AMD hardware because of XYZ.
 
Last edited:
juanrga said:
THAT flawed review cited again...

(i) GPU bound and frame limiting settings.
(ii) Enginering sample for Intel
(iii) Mobo imcompatible with the i7 and he managed to burn the CPU...



When Bulldozer was released the claim was that Bulldozer did bring mainstream 8-core and "soon" games would start using all cores and Bulldozer would beat i5s. It didn't happen.

When consoles got 8-cores the claim was that "soon" games would start using eigth-cores cores and Piledriver would beat i5s. I remember Eurogamer publishing a ridiculous analysis and claiming that FX-8350 was more "future proof" than i5. It didn't happen.

When Mantle was launched, the claim was that single-thread bottleneck was eliminated from APIs and "soon" games would start running faster on AMD hardware. It didn't happen.

Same claims repeated with DX12 and Vulkan. It didn't happen.

Similar claims at RyZen launch and false promises about supposed legion of coming 'patched' games. It didn't happen, besides a pair of broken games that were patched but still they did run faster on Intel after the patches. I remember one of those games. I was runing 80% slower on RyZen before the patch and then running 40% slower after the patch. Intel was faster.

So the meaning of "soon" is permanently changed. Now "soon" means the next year. It will not happen. And I guess that by 2020, people will be claiming how "soon" games will run faster on AMD hardware because of XYZ.
Click to expand...
:LOL:, I think or hope you can do better than that. All that Coffee Lake did was for Intel to catch up some to the multi-threading ability of Ryzen (really any serious computing type application will use the CPU as much as possible). When Ryzen launched it made obsolete virtually the whole Intel lineup. Intel had to speed up their time line before OEMs really started to jump to AMD. Except AMD did not have an effective APU until now (except still not available for the desktop).

For gaming neither AMD or Intel cpu's are the limiting factors -> It is still the GPU and even Volta will probably not alleviate that.
 
noko said:
For gaming neither AMD or Intel cpu's are the limiting factors -> It is still the GPU and even Volta will probably not alleviate that.
Click to expand...

What? There's literally a post a few before this one that disproves what you just said? Nevermind common sense...

juanrga said:
PR uses the same Zen muarch than SR. So there is no IPC bump. Only clock bump, because PR is a Richland.-like refresh of SR. 10% higher clocks? Maybe.



Games aren't thoughput workloads, so there is a master thread and single core performance is relevant, because if the master thread is bottlenecked then any slave thread will be bottlenecked no matter how many core you give to the engine.

CFL i3 (~KBL i5) is so fast like R7 1800X on AC origins. That "tragic death" claim is so incorrect as the dozens of similar claims made since Bulldozer about the death of i5s...

qqeKTqZnuXpvXawBz4nATR-650-80.png
Click to expand...
 
Dayaks said:
What? There's literally a post a few before this one that disproves what you just said? Nevermind common sense...
Click to expand...
For 4K gaming it won't make a difference. My cpu barely does anything on my system with Rift and 4K monitor.
I think they probably mean 120hz+ you would want highest fps so Intel would work best in mosty cases.
 
juanrga said:
PR uses the same Zen muarch than SR. So there is no IPC bump. Only clock bump, because PR is a Richland.-like refresh of SR. 10% higher clocks? Maybe.



Games aren't thoughput workloads, so there is a master thread and single core performance is relevant, because if the master thread is bottlenecked then any slave thread will be bottlenecked no matter how many core you give to the engine.

CFL i3 (~KBL i5) is so fast like R7 1800X on AC origins. That "tragic death" claim is so incorrect as the dozens of similar claims made since Bulldozer about the death of i5s...

qqeKTqZnuXpvXawBz4nATR-650-80.png
Click to expand...

Lol you literally proved yourself wrong on that. Did you not notice that the Threadripper chips is outperforming the lower core count 1800X despite the fact the Threadripper is running at slower speeds, just more cores.... Hell even the 7900X did well and almost beat the supposed best gaming chip 8700K and to be honest it's within the margin of error. You literally picked the worse game to try to make your point that single thread IPC will limit game performance.
 
Dayaks said:
What? There's literally a post a few before this one that disproves what you just said? Nevermind common sense...
Click to expand...
Many folks game on Bobcat cores from AMD - still with big grins on their faces as well (consoles). Now we have to have a 5ghz 8700K otherwise our eyes will bleed, big frowns due to a few fps less than 200fps. The gaming arguments fall flat and are BS for the most part. Probably the best gaming/$ CPU/platform would be a Ryzen 1600 which will have upgrade paths years ahead as well.
 
Uhm guys serious question i'm on playing mmorpgs and currently really enjoying bns. Ryzen is pretty cheap at the States and I can grab one and let my aunt bring here in the Philippines. But it isnt that good with bns. If an 1600/1700 paired with a stronger card like 1070 will it performe better? Not much benchmarks that i could find on the net sadly. Another choice is 8400 but availability of mitx boards are still scarce here. 8700 is out of the question since my case is a tiny Dan a4 v2. Or just wait for the zen+/intel cheap boards on Feb? Since my case won't arrive till Feb aswell. Thanks
 
Last edited:
jenosmaverick said:
Uhm guys serious question i'm on playing mmorpgs and currently really enjoying bns. Ryzen is pretty cheap at the States and I can grab one and let my aunt bring here in the Philippines. But it isnt that good with bns. If an 1600/1700 paired with a stronger card like 1070 will it performe better? Not much benchmarks that i could find on the net sadly. Another choice is 8400 but availability of mitx boards are still scarce here. 8700 is out of the question since my case is a tiny Dan a4 v2. Or just wait for the zen+/intel cheap boards on Feb? Since my case won't arrive till Feb aswell. Thanks
Click to expand...
Well waiting wont hurt as you can keep an eye out for deals during the wait. It is hard to find any updated info on performance for that game. Seems a DX9 single threaded game from posts in their own forums. But that isn't to say it wont be playable, which I don't believe it would be as I play games from over past 2 decades still on my [email protected] and have no issues getting high frame rates. You may need to ask around in game from others with the equipment you are interested in. Real world usage is far better than any benchmark can show anyway.

Of course a strong GPU will help turn on the eye candy and help alleviate any CPU bottlenecks but it doesn't change the CPU performance. As in the CPU min is 47fps = it will always be 47fps no matter the GPU, just in some cases where the min on the GPU is 40 the GPU becomes the bottleneck.
 
If the game craves high single-thread performance and doesn't really care about multi-threaded performance, your case is a limitation- high clocks mean high heat. You might even look at the Intel quad-core CPUs with hyperthreading like the 6700k and 7700k instead, and increase the one- and possibly two-core max clockspeeds.

[in theory, MMO's should be easier to multi-thread and thus should be a better fit for Ryzen, but it's up to developers to make that happen]
 
Thanks!!! I guess am gonna include the 7700 on my list and just grab the cheapest available this holiday season. I won't be overclocking so I wont be looking at the k models. Thanks a bunch!
 
Nathan_P said:
and maybe by 2020 I will be able to buy a 8600k or 8700k:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

https://www.pccomponentes.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-37ghz-box

noko said:
:LOL:, I think or hope you can do better than that. All that Coffee Lake did was for Intel to catch up some to the multi-threading ability of Ryzen (really any serious computing type application will use the CPU as much as possible). When Ryzen launched it made obsolete virtually the whole Intel lineup. Intel had to speed up their time line before OEMs really started to jump to AMD. Except AMD did not have an effective APU until now (except still not available for the desktop).

For gaming neither AMD or Intel cpu's are the limiting factors -> It is still the GPU and even Volta will probably not alleviate that.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that Kabylake models are still among best-sellers in many stores? At time of writing this Kabylake i7 and i5 are #1 and #2 in Amazon best-selling list. No bad for being "obsolete". :rolleyes:

And are you aware the several CoffeeLake models have already been named best gaming CPUs ever?

Intel Coffee Lake Core i7-8700K review: The best gaming CPU you can buy

Fastest gaming processor

Intel i5-8400 review - the best new gaming CPU in years

Gideon said:
Lol you literally proved yourself wrong on that. Did you not notice that the Threadripper chips is outperforming the lower core count 1800X despite the fact the Threadripper is running at slower speeds, just more cores.... Hell even the 7900X did well and almost beat the supposed best gaming chip 8700K and to be honest it's within the margin of error. You literally picked the worse game to try to make your point that single thread IPC will limit game performance.
Click to expand...

ThreadRipper has higher single-core performance than 1800X. So ThreadRipper is faster than 1800X because it has more cores and each core is faster. But the i5 is faster than ThreadRipper because throwing 2.6x moar cores to the game engine cannot do the master thread to run 2.6x faster.

So a 16C Zen running behind than 6C i5 just proves what I said about how single-core performance matter for games. And that with OrangeKrush cherry picking the game. ;)

The i9-7900x did very well because it has similar single-core performance than CoffeLake.
 
The reason why Kaby lake is selling so well when its the older model is that coffee lake has only just become widely available - The launch of coffee lake was the very definition of a paper launch
 
juanrga said:
https://www.pccomponentes.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-37ghz-box



Are you aware that Kabylake models are still among best-sellers in many stores? At time of writing this Kabylake i7 and i5 are #1 and #2 in Amazon best-selling list. No bad for being "obsolete". :rolleyes:

And are you aware the several CoffeeLake models have already been named best gaming CPUs ever?

Intel Coffee Lake Core i7-8700K review: The best gaming CPU you can buy

Fastest gaming processor

Intel i5-8400 review - the best new gaming CPU in years



ThreadRipper has higher single-core performance than 1800X. So ThreadRipper is faster than 1800X because it has more cores and each core is faster. But the i5 is faster than ThreadRipper because throwing 2.6x moar cores to the game engine cannot do the master thread to run 2.6x faster.

So a 16C Zen running behind than 6C i5 just proves what I said about how single-core performance matter for games. And that with OrangeKrush cherry picking the game. ;)

The i9-7900x did very well because it has similar single-core performance than CoffeLake.
Click to expand...


Your so full of it. Threadripper and Ryzen are the same IPC the difference is larger cache sizes and Quad channel memory. Threadripper runs slower and has more latency then a Ryzen chip and why it's not as good at games, except when a game can leverage all those cores like Assassins Creed Origins. No the I5 is faster due to the better IPC on Intel and the massive clock speed difference and to be honest it's right there with it despite that massive clock speed difference. You should admit you were wrong before no one pays attention to what you post and oh have a look at that massive IPC difference between Threadripper and Ryzen. Clock speed is still very important in games and the main reason Intel is ahead in that area, but as games leverage more and more cores it will become less important.

index.php
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
I want to see benchmarks done on a "gaming" computer that has been running the same install of windows for at least 2 years, has had dozens of programs installed and uninstalled, running a variety of god knows what in the back ground like utorrent, steam, google drive...etc and that will tell you whether the Ryzen or the Intel chip is more "future proof"... I get the feeling that the chip that has MOAR COREZ will likely get MOAR FPS BRO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top