JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
then answer me.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Ryzen vs Coffee Lake
- Thread starter adobian
- Start date
Your post #560? I already answered that kind of stuff multiple times.
It looks like Ryzen will be very competitive in FF XV as Hardware Unboxed has revieled. The avgerage FPS are still behind Intel but the 1% lows are impressive. Hell, even the FX 8350 does well against the 2600k!
Sorry about the lack of link. I am posting this on mobile.
Sorry about the lack of link. I am posting this on mobile.
elites2012
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 20
hell i bought a r5 1600. i see is some test, the 6 core beats an i7 in a lot of benchmarks. intel did convince A LOT of companies to use their perks and single core recognition, just so it would seem better. AMD sat and let the companies choose, until ryzen hit the market.
Yeah the FFXV benchmarks are rather interesting. Usually when you reduce the GPU bottleneck in games Intels get faster because of their raw horsepower over AMD. But in this case its pretty much the opposite. Intel still clearly peaks higher and averages better but AMD catches on instead of being left behind, to a point they are very close. Even an offspring of Bulldozer piece of shit suddenly becomes alive and trades blows with a Sandy Bridge! Never thought I'd see that happen in any videogame.
Is it a quirky benchmark or a sign how Ryzen will perform in the future if/when games become more threaded?
Even [H] review of FX-8150 does well in gaming against i7 2600k.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Both.
FF XV looks like an example of a well-threaded CPU light game, in pre-release benchmark form. That makes it somewhat rare; most modern games, even well-threaded ones, still rely significantly on a single process that stresses single-core performance, and is more indicative of how this benchmark is set up than of future game performance requirements.
At the very least, it does contribute evidence that while Ryzen CPUs aren't going to be the fastest for gaming any time soon, they're certainly capable of producing acceptable performance.
Stanley Pain
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2001
- Messages
- 2,510
For once we can blame consoles for something good. Forcing more multi-threaded code into games because those consoles need every last ounce of computing power.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Yup.
The other half of that is getting DX12/Vulkan support in. Once that happens, PC games following the current paradigm more or less won't care about CPU so long as the threaded resources are there.
Which means that gaming can finally start moving forward
Guru 3D did a review on the newest build for FF XV and it looks like Ryzen VERY competitive!
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
The first graph shows core scaling and we see a clear advantage of 4/8 and 6/6 scaling over 4/4 Cores. Keep in mind, these are averages so the difference may be way higher during combat and we are game limited to 120 fps. 1080p should be the focus.
Next up we see how Ryzen does. Again 1080p needs to be the focus here. 720p is Game limited while 1440p and up are GPU limited. At 4.0 Ghz, the Ryzen is neck and neck with the Intel at 4.2 Ghz. Not bad!
Given that CPU scaling maxes out at 4/8 and 6/6, It should be expected that the R5 1600 and R3 1400 will reach these levels at 4.0 ghz. With the lower cache, the 2400g might be slightly less, but who knows. All in all very impressive for AMD and another example of where 4/8 and 6/6 cores and up are the way to go if building a PC going forward.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Clock-for-clock is looking very good in this game. It's not a demanding one, but it's certain to be popular!
And I definitely agree on 4/8 or 6/6 being the minimum these days.
Well the lesser 8th gen Intel chipsets have been released. The i5s can be more directly compared now to the R5s in price:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i5-8600-processor-(65w)-review.html
As for performance, the R5s beat up the i5s on everything short of low-res gaming. And this is without o/c! Without MCE, the i5s no longer look so hot. Hell, my 2400g at 4.0 ghz would give some of the i5s a good scare. Then we have the 2600x around the corner...
For high-fps gaming, Intel will remain boss. For everything else, Amd is looking VERY strong.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i5-8600-processor-(65w)-review.html
As for performance, the R5s beat up the i5s on everything short of low-res gaming. And this is without o/c! Without MCE, the i5s no longer look so hot. Hell, my 2400g at 4.0 ghz would give some of the i5s a good scare. Then we have the 2600x around the corner...
For high-fps gaming, Intel will remain boss. For everything else, Amd is looking VERY strong.
Okay so have you actually done it a dozen times? Have you ever actually ever built, overclocked and/or benchmarked a Ryzen system? Have you ever owned one?
I have a Ryzen 1700. At stock when all cores are on song and there’s thermal headroom, it runs at 3.2ghz.
Overclocked it runs nicely at 3.75 without excessive voltage. (1.21v)
Getting back on topic.
I have zero regrets. I sometimes, rarely, miss having integrated graphics. But that is literally the only thing I miss. It is fast, stable and a great platform.
Overclocked it runs nicely at 3.75 without excessive voltage. (1.21v)
Getting back on topic.
I have zero regrets. I sometimes, rarely, miss having integrated graphics. But that is literally the only thing I miss. It is fast, stable and a great platform.
sanders4617
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 114
For someone who games mostly, and just does some Adobe Premiere.. I'm hoping I made the right choice with the i7 8700k. Based off benchmarks and what I like to do, seems to be best for me. I think that is the key to finding what processor you should get.. figure out what you do and which CPU will do best in those situations.
The obvious answer is no. He can only speculate on performance and refer to other peoples work to relay information based on said work.
I have one of each. Both with 1080 TI's in them. Gaming wise, there isnt much of a difference. Running Cinebench, the Ryzen 1700 out performs the 8700k with a mild overclock of 3.75 ghz.
I like them both, the 8700k does run much, much warmer, though.
I like them both, the 8700k does run much, much warmer, though.
He probably sits in a starbucks and posts from an ipad
ZiggyDeath
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2017
- Messages
- 222
Do I regret my purchase of the 1700? Yes.
Would I have made the same decision, in retrospect? Yes.
That being said, I may purchase a 2700 or a 2700x as a drop in replacement for the 1700 based on reviews.
Both of these are going substantially faster than my 1700, since I got a bum chip.
Especially if the boost duration is now based on thermal overhead, since I got loads of that.
Would I have made the same decision, in retrospect? Yes.
That being said, I may purchase a 2700 or a 2700x as a drop in replacement for the 1700 based on reviews.
Both of these are going substantially faster than my 1700, since I got a bum chip.
Especially if the boost duration is now based on thermal overhead, since I got loads of that.
I don't like coffeehouses and I don't own anything from Apple. So probably you are wrong about me, with a probability of 100%.
Ok, sitting alone in a bar on your Blackberry.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
By warmer, are you comparing power draw at the wall? That's really the only empirical way to tell how much heat is actually being generated. Thermometers on CPUs can vary quite a bit and are generally more useful to show trends.
My remarks are based on monitoring temps using HWMonitor during load and for extended periods of time. I have a Cryorig H5 Universal on the Ryzen and a Fractal Design Celsius 360 on the Intel. The Air cooled cooler provides just as adequate cooling (if not slightly cooler) as the AIO, even during heavy loads. This is when a 3.75ghz OC is applied to Ryzen, and 8700k is at stock. I'd bust out the kill-a-watt, but the systems are very different from one another. (MITX v ATX, ATX PWS vs SFX PWS, 4 fans vs 8 fans, etc, etc)
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Then it's fair to say that your specific 8700k system reports higher on-die temperatures than your specific Ryzen system
.[I wouldn't honestly make a prediction one way or the other from the fairest possible test, just pointing out that using the built-in temperature sensors for a comparison really doesn't tell us much given all of the variables involved]
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
there's a lot of variables that go into it.. naturally though AMD processors have typically run cooler than intel processors(except FX chips). but quite frankly it all comes down to the fact that intel's still being cheapskates by using TIM instead of using solder.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Does one report higher core temps and the other report lower? Probably.
Does that mean anything by itself? Not at all.
That's what I'm pointing out. That's clarity, not muddying.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
I thought that Intel was going to pay AMD to show them how to do a proper soldered CPU? Since Intel must have lost the directions on how to do it.
Both will run hot near their max. You have to risk damaging your cpu with Intel to get it to run cooler. Also you might need to take off up to 30% for Intels bug fixes.
I would love to get a Threadripper system even though I do not need the horsepower. It would be sweet for DC projects.
I will run my SOLDERED 5960x until it either is too slow or I get the itch.
legcramp
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 12,401
TBH that game looks like the worst game to compare cpus.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
It probably makes a piss-poor CPU test, but the 'best' games to compare CPUs on (beyond focused benchmarks, of course!) are the games people are actually playing, and I can't imagine FFXV being unpopular.
Do you mean 3%? Even taking that off, Intel continues ahead of AMD by a good margin.
And when will AMD issue the needed microcode to activate the Spectre patches? We continue awaiting.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
3% at the lowest, 30% at the most, yes. My bad.
_mockingbird
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 992
Ryzen 7 1800X ~ Core i7-6900K
Ryzen 7 2700X ~ Core i7-7820X
AMD went from Broadwell => Skylake, which is not a bad place to be.
ZiggyDeath
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2017
- Messages
- 222
Although I don't necessarily agree with this assessment, the boost is certainly enough to catch my attention.
How likely I am to switch really depends on turbo behavior and price.
The 8700k is stock, the 1700 is OC, The 1700 runs cooler on air than the 8700k on a 360mm AIO loop.
I was really looking forward to the Hardware Unboxed Ryzen 5 2600 vs. Core i5-8400, 36 Game Benchmark Battle video given my P55 motherboard is showing signs its about to take the choice of whether to continue the perpetual wait for the next generation or not out of my hands, and wanting to finally have a definitive answer... but it feels like its just muddied the waters.
There's my issue... assuming the *cheapest* local listings for each component - i5 8400 and R5 2600, Z370 and X470 motherboards respectively, and 16gb DDR4 kit at 2666 or greater for the Intel system and a kit that will likely be able to do 3400 for the AMD system:
I understand that there are cheaper motherboards for both, and RAM options for a 2600, but without the better memory especially, aren't you back to comparing stock i5 8400 and stock R5 2600 and so hamstringing the latter? And otherwise, the $156 difference would be enough to swap out the i5 8400 for an i5 8700 (non-K) here... boosts to the same or slightly higher all core clocks as the OC 2600 (and +10% higher than the i5 8400), has the same 6/12 threads as the 2600...
Bad local/RAM pricing is the kicker. Struggling with the choices, happy to be shown my faulty logic here.
There's my issue... assuming the *cheapest* local listings for each component - i5 8400 and R5 2600, Z370 and X470 motherboards respectively, and 16gb DDR4 kit at 2666 or greater for the Intel system and a kit that will likely be able to do 3400 for the AMD system:
Code:
Item | Intel | AMD
--------------------------------------
CPU | $249 | $275
Motherboard | $165 | $229
RAM | $259 | $325
--------------------------------------
Total | $673 | $829I understand that there are cheaper motherboards for both, and RAM options for a 2600, but without the better memory especially, aren't you back to comparing stock i5 8400 and stock R5 2600 and so hamstringing the latter? And otherwise, the $156 difference would be enough to swap out the i5 8400 for an i5 8700 (non-K) here... boosts to the same or slightly higher all core clocks as the OC 2600 (and +10% higher than the i5 8400), has the same 6/12 threads as the 2600...
Bad local/RAM pricing is the kicker. Struggling with the choices, happy to be shown my faulty logic here.
It's a good price breakdown but I think you underestimate the B350. My had $100 board gave me 3333 mhz ram and that was most likely hindered by the memory controller of the 2400g.
So now you are looking at $750 AUS? for the AMD setup if you still want to get some hot ram. The extra $75 is worth it imho for the better multitasking.
So now you are looking at $750 AUS? for the AMD setup if you still want to get some hot ram. The extra $75 is worth it imho for the better multitasking.
Thanks for that, will have to go back over the B350 options. Even taking into account the lack of overclocking on a 8700 non-K, the difference in price between a B360 and Z370 here doesn't seem to be equivalent to the savings between a B350 and X470.
I suppose my concerns there were around how well supported things like Precision Boost and XFR will be for that chipset - i.e. whether motherboard manufactures will neglect the updates for B series chips and focus on the X series as time goes on, or whether it might be worth trying to hold out for a B450 or whatever the equivalent may be. More about selecting the right manufacturer perhaps, or non-issue if manually overclocking? I was going to say and that the new chipset might also better support features of future generations of Ryzen, but realize that would be unfair considering the likelihood Z370 has any support for future i5's or i7's not to mention how old the platform is I'm moving from.
Ah +$75 for x2 the threads, strong argument... and would turn the tables to be for 6 core/12 threads system is a $829 i7 8700 build at all worth the extra $89 over a $750 R5 2600.
Refreshing, the burden of choice.
I suppose my concerns there were around how well supported things like Precision Boost and XFR will be for that chipset - i.e. whether motherboard manufactures will neglect the updates for B series chips and focus on the X series as time goes on, or whether it might be worth trying to hold out for a B450 or whatever the equivalent may be. More about selecting the right manufacturer perhaps, or non-issue if manually overclocking? I was going to say and that the new chipset might also better support features of future generations of Ryzen, but realize that would be unfair considering the likelihood Z370 has any support for future i5's or i7's not to mention how old the platform is I'm moving from.
Ah +$75 for x2 the threads, strong argument... and would turn the tables to be for 6 core/12 threads system is a $829 i7 8700 build at all worth the extra $89 over a $750 R5 2600.
Refreshing, the burden of choice.